TheRenaissanceMan
-
Posts
1,503 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by TheRenaissanceMan
-
-
Same
-
-
A small unit with some throw (fresnel, S4 par, etc) on a tall lightweight stand with a sandbag should be all you need to emulate that sample. Maybe a bounce card to keep the subject's face up.
Waterproof is tougher, but some cello screen or other rain cover shouldn't be too hard with just one light. You can even do the ole' golf umbrella in a c stand knuckle trick if you want to keep things streamlined.
-
-
Interesting. I've had no crashes with the lite version so far.
-
22 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:
Typical Sony Skin Tones Grading Session:
1. Pull towards magenta.
2. Pull back to green.
3. Pull a bit more back to magenta.
4. A little nudge towards green.
5. Slight more magenta.
6. Increment of green.
7. Too magenta, or too green?
8. Arrgh sod it, looks good enough.
The A6500 has the best skin tones at the lower end.
FS7 and F55 and barely any different.
The issue I've found is mostly the suspect white balance on Sony consumer cameras. Doesn't work as expected. This causes crap looking footage uploaded to Vimeo.
On the VENICE, it looks like if you press button on it, a building nearby will explode.
I've never read anything so correct in my life.
This was my entire day today.
The weird thing is that the green/magenta thing skews with exposure, at least on the A7S. Overexposed shots or areas of the shot are greener than others, which makes hitting that balance incredibly difficult. The best method I've found if you really need to nail it dead on is to correct with a custom curve in the green channel, then dial in your lift/gamma/gain separately while zoomed in on a highlight/midtone/shadow. And even then you'll probably have to do some mucking around in hue vs hue.
Luckily, my F3 doesn't suffer from any of this(at least in S-LOG). A bit of red in the shadows, but that's an easy enough fix and hardly shot-breaking.
-
Downloaded the free version and colored a music video with it today. Performance is the best of any version yet, even on my modest laptop, and the new placement of the black/white point and white balance tools is an intuitive and welcome update. Didn't dig too far into the editor or Fairlight yet, but as a color tool it's still unmatched...especially for the price.
-
Another member of the F3 + BMPCC club here. Love the results, and with one cheap adapter plate I can use the same batteries on both. Just gotta grab that BMPCC speed booster one of these days so I can match crop factor and low light a little closer.
-
58 minutes ago, Cinegain said:
I see a lot of people selling these off again. Would be interesting to find out why exactly. Maybe the image is just too well-behaved for some? To me it means: no surprises, predictability can be a good thing, especially if you're into more commercial shooting where you want your results to be consistent.
I think there's some drive towards investing in lenses that'll cover FF35 as well as S35 and DSLR/cinema cams as well as mirrorless: hence, FF lenses with longer flange distances. With the explosion in affordable cinema lenses that cover FF35 and come in both PL and EF mounts, the Veydras are falling by the wayside as a less versatile option.
That said, I love the little guys. If you're a mirrorless shooter who does narrative, they're one of the best options on the market. -
-
-
On 7/23/2017 at 1:31 AM, jonpais said:
Beautiful family, crisp 1080p, outstanding image quality, no nasty aliasing or moire, nice skin tones - too bad it's nearly impossible to shoot handheld without jitters. I'd still pick up a GX80/G85 over this camera for that very reason. Oh, and still no zebras on the X-T2, so pretty difficult to gauge exposure for video with a tiny histogram the size of a fingernail clipping.
Use a monopod, gimbal, shoulder rig, or stabilized lens. IBIS isn't a requirement for shooting handheld.
-
2 hours ago, tupp said:
That explains why we use Fresnels to illuminate smooth cycs and green screens instead of open-face cyclights and open-face flood washes specifically made for that purpose. /s
What?! Open-face sources have "hot spots" and "uneven spread?" ... compared to Fresnels?! Please explain.
Too busy right now to respond to the rest of your post.
It depends on the fixture of course--purpose-made open faces can certainly provide an even wash-- but your standard redhead/blonde isn't exactly providing a smooth clean beam. And fresnels aren't as even as a leko, but the way they taper off at the edges is very pretty and works great for lighting talent if you want a hard source (particularly at full spot).
If you have work where you've shone a redhead/blonde/Arrilite/Mickey Mole directly on talent's face and gotten good results, I'd love to see it.
-
-
On 2/18/2015 at 7:23 PM, tupp said:
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.
And have hot spots, uneven spread, and a generally harsh quality of light.
Most lights used on film sets are fresnels, and they're the more versatile starting point for someone building a kit. Sure, get one or two open faces, but they're blunt force lighting instruments: good for smacking a bounce or filling diffusion. I would almost never shine one straight on a human face.
If that's what you're looking for, pars are the more versatile option anyway imo. A source four is only a fraction bigger and gives you way more options. Plus, they look pretty good as direct light, particularly as edges or if you're trying to sculpt a space with hard beams.
Lekos are also incredibly useful. Yes, they're larger than open faces, but the clean cuts, long throws, and even fields make bounces or filling diffusion incredibly fast and easy, as well as (in many cases) eliminating the need for extra flags and c-stands. Along with source four pars, you'd also be hard pressed to find more efficient fixtures.
I think there's validity to the op's request. Full ctb kills 3/4 of your output, and being able to dim your source without juggling gels to even out your color temp can be pretty handy. That said, I haven't found anything as flexible as the tungsten options on the market in terms of variety, control, punch, and color temp.
Astras are great for what I'd use an open face for: bouncing or diffusing. They're also not terrible for edges or pools, although cutting them can be a real bitch. Their bare output isn't the most flattering--I like some Hollywood Frost in front at a minimum--but in certain situations it can be quite characteristic and appealing.
If you don't need hard sources but want something strong and dimmable with daylight balance, LED tubes from Quasar Science or Source Maker are excellent options. Both very bright with fantastic cri and switchable color temp.
-
Here is why.
A big selling point of Netflix is a library of 4K HDR content. HDR demands a high camera dynamic range, as well as a large color gamut. Those 3 things--4K+ resolution, high DR, and wide color space--are therefore important requirements for Netflix's premium commissioned content.
One of the primary differences between the F5 and F55 is the color filter array, which is "wide gamut" on the F55 and "optimised for r.709" on the F5. Thus the F5's disqualification.
The Alexa/Amira are very crisp cameras, but not native 4K+. Thus they are not included.
This only applies to content produced/commissioned by Netflix; content they acquire after the fact is not subject to these limitations.
There are many excellent cameras on that list. I'm actually somewhat grateful for these edicts, as they've pushed the new Varicam into the limelight as the new narrative television workhorse.
You don't have to like it, but their reasoning in this matter is completely transparent.
-
They are expensive to service, and build isn't ideal. Optically though, they are extraordinary. If I recall, at least some are copies of old arri/Zeiss designs from that era, and provide an incredible look for the money.
@richg101 and/or @andy lee would be the best resources on the subject, as their lens knowledge puts mine to absolute shame.
-
3 hours ago, IronFilm said:
I think the Zoom F4 is a pretty sexy recorder! Although I still lust over the likes of a SX-R4+... a friend just put the deposit down on one! :-o Hopefully I'll get a chance to check out the SX-R4+ in person.
Yes, there are heaps more topics I still need to cover! Have been meaning to blog (and vblog, although my vblog is almost empty) more on this, but this was my first post in a very looooooooong time on my blog at IronFilm.co.nz
There is this problem where there is this wealth of information for aspiring DoPs to learn from which is targeted at the indie level (and the indie level is the vast majority of the world!), but when it comes to sound.... *crickets*.
Heck, even at the full on professional level for sound there is almost nothing!
You have jwsoundgroup (which is a forum that is very unfriendly to n00bs), Sound Rolling (best vBlog on the planet! Ha. Welll... his is the only one on this topic), and WavReport (a blog Andrew Jones just started up this year). Plus of course the usual retailers and brands' YouTube channels and articles they publish (but of course you should take all of those with a big grain of salt).And underneath this, what is there? Basically nothing at all, until you reach the level of videographers who of course are not doing sound as their core focus. Thus if you're a sound recordist starting out and looking around at those kinds of people (videographers) the amount of information which is spread that is a bit odd, irrelevant, upside down, clueless, missing the point, plain outright wrong, or just simply outdated is a LOT.
Curtis Judd is the rare exception to this, a videographer who puts out regular content about sound recording that is actually pretty good (although even he now and then occasionally says something which is a bit odd I think or just is omitting info, because he is saying everything from a videographer's perceptive)
The final option a budding new location sound recordist would try and check out is the various musician and other non-film sound recording websites (forums such as gearslutz / taperssection / soundsonsound / prosoundweb / indierecordingdepot / homerecording / mixonline / tweakheadz / etc... ), there are TONNES of sites out there! About sound, but sadly without a focus on filmmaking. Which means while useful
I hope to fill in some of these gaps in the future to cover the huge area there is between a just starting out sound recordist and a jwsoungroup regular! :-)
From my knowledge I've gained picking together these scattered bits of knowledge spread in random parts of the internet, together with my experience in just going out and doing this every single week.
Hopefully it won't be 2018 when I write my next blog article.... :-o
But very briefly, there are three kinds of mics you'll want in any basic sound recordist's kit:
1) indoor boom mic (rather than list a bunch of options, the quickest summary I'll give is this link to Curtis Judd's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-b_1gOYOEQ although, I might add one more to consider if you're on a super frugal budget: iSK Little Gem. Thinking about buying it to give the Little Peal a spin, also might get the iSK Pearl)2) shotgun mic for outdoors (Rode NTG3 is a popular cheaper alternative to the ubiquitous Sennheiser 416, a new player to consider is the Aputure Deity. If you're being super cheap, then there is the Audio-Technica AT875R. Or if it is a choice between nothing or a microphone could go for Azden SGM-1X or even Vidpro XM-55, if you're being really cheap but you're only excused if you're also shooting on a Panasonic GH1 with a kit lens).
3) wireless lavs as insurance (as while Boom is King, there will often be times when production will force you against your will to compromise and you'll need need to rely on you lavs. This why I call them "insurance", you never want to use your insurance, but when you have to.... you're very bloody glad indeed that you have insurance!! Although just like insurance in real life, there are times when you think you're covered by the insurance company.... but you're not. So it is best not to take the risk and gamble on insurance if you don't have to. When it comes to considering wireless lavs to buy that is not the usual pro industry standard of Lectrosonics/Zaxcom/Wyscom/etc, then I recommend Sony UWP-D11. As they're the same price as the ubiquitous Sennheiser G3 but better. I recommend to have at least two, but three or four is even better. The next step is to upgrade the stock lavs which come with the kit, two common industry standards is Tram TR50 and Sanken COS-11D. Oscar SoundTech is a cheaper alternative: http://www.oscarsoundtech.com/services.html)
4) a bonus 4th item I'll list to have... not so essential in a sound recordist's kit as the first 3 listed, but often oh so useful as it is absolutely shocking how often (a LOT!) the camera crew will show up and not even have a microphone in their kit for their own camera!! (and this for cameras which don't an ANY internal mics at all! Such as a RED or Arri or FS7 or many many others) Thus the 4th item I suggest you have is some kind of on camera mic plus a large variety of cables to work with various cameras, as it is just for scratch reference all sorts of mics could fill this role. Usually your back up boom mic could fill this role in a pinch.
Thank you so much, IronFilm. All this is incredibly valuable. Indeed, there's a severe lack of info out there on the audio side of filmmaking. Sad, since bad audio will ruin a film far sooner and more definitively than foibles with the picture.
Do you have any experience with the MKE600? If so, what's your opinion of it?
-
Not sure why people are so confused by this article... Maybe it's just a reflection on EOSHD's demographic. Clearly more videographers, hobbyists, and people that shoot MOS material/b-roll.
Incredibly useful suggestions, IronFilm. Been meaning to pick your brain on audio for a while, so this saves me some effort. Would love to see another topic/post on what mics to pair with these sexy recorders, and maybe even some pointers on boom/lav technique. Keep up the good work!
-
16 minutes ago, Cinegain said:
TRM, your signature mentiones Leica R primes, do you happen to have some insight on either 35mm f/2 Summicron or f/2.8 Elmarit?
I haven't used the elmarit, but the summicron is freaking gorgeous. Our go to lens on virtually everything. A bit creamier wide open, but stop down and the contrast snaps in for a crisper look. Like two lenses in one, and gorgeous both ways.
The 35 summicron anchors my lineup. Then I've got the 50 and 90 summicrons, as well as the 28 elmarit. Would love a 19 to round out the set, especially on s35, but it's just not in the budget right now.
-
-
-
2 hours ago, Timotheus said:
Don't discard some mighty fine APS-C glass you can use, and that DPAF is great.
Sadly, none of the Canon stuff, as they don't let you the EF-S glass on full frame bodies.
-
14 hours ago, tugela said:
Chances are the store won't have any in stock and not on the display shelves if they do. Best buy tend to sell older models mostly (at least the stores around where I live).
The best buy I used to work at has a couple A9s in stock right now. I'm sure they'd take it out of the box for me to try if I asked real nice.
New YouTubers and bloggers, who to follow...
In: Cameras
Posted
Luke Seerveld's Meet the Gaffer series isn't very camera-focused, but it's incredibly educational and features some great work with the GH4 and (recently) GH5.