Daniel Acuña

V-LOG so far showed best skintones though. With well lit skin that is. You wouldn't really want to use it in lowlight though and doesn't make much sense to use on gloomy days either. So more of a specific than standard go-to profile.
Always felt like Natural and dialing everything down quite a bit (just saturation not that much) looked great. But maybe you're a supertone person. 'Best settings' is something quite subjective. Depends on the scene, what you're willing to sacrifice to get a certain something and what look you're going for/like. I'm afraid there isn't really an universal setting. Best to try a couple of popular recommended profiles and find what works for you.

http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1580
http://www.rogerdeakins.com/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2505
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=21447
http://reduser.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-2061.html
My personal favorites are:
35-40mm equiv--wide shots and steadicam
70-75mm equiv--medium close-ups and general use
135-150mm equiv--intense close-ups, shallow focus/macro, and compressed perspective shots

I find the really wide angles hard to use effectively, distractingly dramatic with their perspective, and unpleasant on people shots. Generally, I use my 75mm (25mm SLR Magic on the BMPCC) the most, because my movies are heavy on acting and dialogue. 

But that's just me. If that last thread taught me anything, it's that there's many different ways to shoot, and all can produce cinematic results. Malick loves his wides. Deakins stays between 28 and 50 for everything. Ridley Scott shoots everything crazy long. Park Chan-Wook shot everything with normal lenses on Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance but used nothing but wides and teles for Oldboy.

As long as you choose your focal lengths with tact and intention, there's no wrong answers--only different preferences. 

Looks strikingly like his photos.. https://instagram.com/chivexp/

Finally we can get a glimpse of some footage shot on the Alexa 65 and it looks amazing, Lubezki and a 65mm digital cinema camera is like the perfect combo for a new oscar! 
Can't wait to watch this movie! The cinematography looks amazing, you can really see it's lubezki behind the camera (wide angle and a lot of steady cam reminded me of Children of men and Tree of Life)!
 

Finally we can get a glimpse of some footage shot on the Alexa 65 and it looks amazing, Lubezki and a 65mm digital cinema camera is like the perfect combo for a new oscar! 
Can't wait to watch this movie! The cinematography looks amazing, you can really see it's lubezki behind the camera (wide angle and a lot of steady cam reminded me of Children of men and Tree of Life)!
 

Finally we can get a glimpse of some footage shot on the Alexa 65 and it looks amazing, Lubezki and a 65mm digital cinema camera is like the perfect combo for a new oscar! 
Can't wait to watch this movie! The cinematography looks amazing, you can really see it's lubezki behind the camera (wide angle and a lot of steady cam reminded me of Children of men and Tree of Life)!
 

Even with a 16stops camera, shitty light will always look shitty.

Wow, my bad. I see enough shitty footage on here that sometimes it's hard to tell who's doing it on purpose and who doesn't know any better. Now that I know you're in the former group, I'll be sure to leave you to your own devices from now on.

This is probably for historical reasons and is related to interlaced video.
With interlaced, each of the two fields is subsampled separately (because the fields represent different time moments and subsampling them the same way as with progressive images would introduce chroma artifacts related to motion). Now, because each field is subsampled separately, if you use one of the subsampling methods with only half the vertical resolution, for example 4:2:0 or 4:4:0, this would result in gaps of two lines with no chroma samples.
Here is how a column of 4 neighbor pixels looks like in this case:
Field 1 Top row (chroma sample)
Field 2 Top row (chroma sample)
Field 1 Bottom row (no chroma sample)
Field 2 Bottom row (no chroma sample)
 
But if you use full vertical sampling, as in 4:2:2, there is no such issue. You only get 1 sample gaps horizontally, and no gaps vertically when applying 4:2:2 to interlaced video.

Just did the update, too. 50Mbit like the A7s! Very nice. Will do a A6000 vs A7s comparison later this week.

Your opinions did really affect me and you were right - so I made shots that hold longer .
 
Thank you guys for the feedback!
 
 

Testing quick skin tone test - with fujifilm look on Alexa and Sony F35 - seeing if they can intercut.
So Amira was on 100mm ultra prime on sticks
Sony F35 was handheld with 85mm ultra prime.
Opps!  Should have both cameras on sticks and with same lens!  Being lazy helps no one.
Anyway, I found the cameras incredibly similar looking.
Hope this little test is useful in some small way to someone out there, anywhere.
And if not, I am so sorry I wasted your time.  I really am.
If I wasted your time, please comment that I wasted your time and I will reply and say, "I''m really sorry I wasted your time."
The other thing is that the f35 with odyssey 7q to dpx 12 bit is around a $10,000 solution right now and the Amira is about a $60k solution.  Sure the Amira is a much nicer ergonomic system and has built in NDs and has many more nice convenient options, but really - you save $50,000. Because people don't like stuff from 2008.  They need stuff from last year.  It's kind of nuts how "gear-forward" everyone is.   Especially now that most cameras are in the same ballpark of log or RGB recording and resolution and sensor size.  Oh well, gotta keep selling the latest and greatest.
So you save $50,000 - that's a lot of money.  Just by buying something that was once new and cool and expensive but is now forgotten.  
This is what you can buy with $50,000 you save.
A set of nice lenses
A house.
A really nice car
Help save the planet's infrastructure
Help save the planet's wealth discrenpancy problem.
Shoot a feature film.
Bail your friend out of jail.
It can buy a lot of great things.
Remember kids, the latest technology is nice - but the best stuff from 2008 still holds up.  Go ahead, give it a try!  It's fun to play with old things!

Watch your language or your going to be the subject of Ed's upcoming documentary. 

Thanks, will check the making of asap, should be interesting. 
Saw the film yesterday. Id give it a solid 8, but i did go in with sky high expectations after witnessing all these ten out of ten reviews. The film is certainly much better than Age of Ultron or Furious 7 and probably will be the best action blockbuster of 2015. Feel it's slightly overrated but not as much as the first Avengers or Guardians of the Galaxy. Id rate it equal to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. 
I was floored at the beginning of the movie and especially at the first carchase setpiece but the latter half of the movie failed to sustain or outdo the assault on the senses i got in the first hour. The second half was really good but it definitely peaked early for me. The last setpiece was more of the same and the sense of danger was somewhat lost sadly. The baddies could have easily won in the end if they had put some thought to their actions. But i guess logic doesn't apply anyway to film such as this.
One nitpick - the high shutter speed in action scenes was way overdone and made the movements too jerky and less realistic.
Overall the design and the world itself was simply amazing and quite mad indeed, if a bit comic book alike compared to earlier films. Tom Hardy was good but he doesn't quite have that fierce look in the eyes like Mel Gibson. Gibson could have still pulled it off imo. Theron was awesome if underdeveloped as a character, but we all now the drama isn't the main attraction in a film like this, so it's all good. 
Soundtack was nothing special, fitted nicely on action but not as much during the quiter scenes, overly pathetic. 
Big respect for Miller to pulling it off, Fury Road is a stunning action movie with incredible visuals and style but not quite a flawless masterpiece. Look forward to seeing it again. 
Id like to add that i secretly hoped for a cameo of Bruce Spence. I don't know if it's just me, but the film seemed to aim for PG13 like Prometheus.

While it may be Andrew's site with his articles on the frontpage/blog, the rest of the threads on the forum its content is decided by the userbase mostly.
So... if you're coming across a lot of tech stuff, that's mainly because that is what the userbase is into. That doesn't mean it's just a place for techies. The content on the forum isn't dictated by Andrew. I see it as an open platform where you decide what's the topic of the day. So if you feel like there's too little stuff going on in the artistic/creative direction, blame yourself, it's up to you to do something about it.
Although I prefer when it's actually about something fresh and useful that benefits and motivates everyone, rather than the old flamewar debate that the best camera is the one you have with you, that you can enter a festival with something shot on an iPhone, that Kendy does great things with the T2i and that content is king. Yeah yeah, we've been over that before, heard it a thousand times, we even agree, we know. But imho there's nothing wrong with discussing the tools that make filmmaking possible. Cameras, lenses, lights, mics/recorders, monitors, stabilizers, et cetera. You can go full nerdgasm on any of these things by the way, not just camera bodies. But the way I see it most just want to explore new territories and open up new creative possibilities that allow them to create what they have envisioned. Nothing wrong with that. And in the end we all choose our own paths. You choose yours, let others choose theirs. Maybe you're oozing creativity and ideas, but are limited by the execution of things. New gear can enable you to move forward, to take it to the next level. Of course if you haven't even unlocked the full potential of your current gear, it's questionable if you really need that new bright shiny toy. But hey, as long as they don't ruin themselves financially, let them buy that RED Weapon Dragon or whatever and let 'em find out the hard way that it takes more then just buying stuff, right?
Anyways. To end on a cool note, I like to share a video I came across the other day...

​I agree with your first paragraph. Once a while my tv happens to end up with a talent show on there... and you hear the saddest sob stories. They don't have any outstanding talents. But hey, you're supposed to feel for them, so go on and like it anyways. And tons of people fall for it. They eat it like pancakes with strawberry and whipped cream. I can't stand that sorta thing. I mean, I'm sorry for so and so, but come on, you've got a mediocre amount of talent, if any, and I'm afraid a sad backstory isn't going to push that to the next level.
I do have to say, on the other hand. Something can be completely random and technically imperfect as can be, and still work. It's just a matter of random puzzle pieces from different puzzles just so happen to come together and create an new image that actually kinda makes sense and/or is beautiful. But you're right, then it has to be work on it's own. It doesn't matter who puts the pieces together. If they don't manage to create something stunning, it's game over for me, no matter who you are.
The same way I wouldn't just like Ed's stuff, for the sake of him being a fellow forum member and a pretty well established cinematographer. I'm not on the same page as Ed on a lot of things he says or does, but that's okay, we're all different. I wouldn't just go and roast someone's work if they didn't ask for an honest opinion, but if they are asking, I will tell them in all honestly that it just doesn't work for me, explain them why and what could've been done to make me feel otherwise about it. If I do like what you did, I will applaud you for it! So if it's about 'say you found Ed's video at random without knowing who shot it', well... I would still have liked it as much as I did. I'm not sure how it would've worked with 'average looking guys', because it would require a completely different video altogether. You can't just change an element, a piece of the puzzle, and claim it's the same as before, therefor works as it did before.
Btw, it's not only about forgiving/overlooking flaws that's inherent to the old days of film, it's actually embracing it or even going further and looking for it specifically! That is why I like vintage lenses so much. If you want the most clinical clean image, that's fine, but that might not work for all your projects since 'politically correct lenses' kind of lack a bit of 'soul'. Old lenses are often lacking multi coatings and hence flare quite a bit. Some really are able to render a background out of focus in a trully elegant way, as if it were painted. Contrast and sharpness are something else. So much character... so much 'soul'. Now, you might think: 'ah, you're going for vintage glass because it's cheap and just accept to live with the flaws'. Au contraire! People actually pay top dollah to get glass with these 'flaws'! It's a matter of stylic choice. The final work is a certain vision (which you might not get, but it nontheless is someone's!). Someone's vision might require vintage glass. Maybe someone else's vision (or your own vision on another project) requires a modern lens. Take the tools you have availlable to you and put it together as to make it work for your project. Put the right pieces of the puzzle together. Sometimes that includes not shooting stuff locked down on a tripod, but going handheld. That might include a certain audio track you envisioned for the piece; that might included adding grain, visual effects and jumpy cuts to your project. The one project is not the next. Sure you can have a certain recognizeable signature style throughout your work. But you will evolve, try different things and change things up... because everyday is a new one and every projects include other people and other situations. Go on the streets and shoot something today. Now go on the street next month and shoot the same thing. It will not be identical (two moments are never identical to begin with, so one piece is even timing if a thing works or not).
And in the end, even if the puzzle pieces do make something great. Not everyone will see it. I guess it's kinda like the next video:
You might see trash. I see art that I quite like. I don't know the guy who made that. I wouldn't have come up with that or done it myself. But I like what he did there. It works on it's own without knowing who made it and a lot of people agree. That doesn't mean that you have to agree though. There's no right or wrong when doing something creative/subjective. Although in some cases, some things are more wrong than right (but then the room probably isn't really devided on that and all draw that same conclusion).

So here are the lens test I did with my cheap C-Mount, m42 and C/Y today.
The lenses are:Zeiss Tevidon 10mm f2.0 C-MountComputar 12.5mm f1.8 C-MountZeiss Tevidon 16mm f1.8 C-MountTokina 24mm f2.8 m42-MountZeiss Jena 35/2.8 m42-MountZeiss Jena 50/2.8 C/Y-MountYashinon 50/1.9 m42-MountThey are all shot with identical aperture, ISO, ND, and WB.
They have all the exact same correction and grade.
So the differences is purely down to the lens.

BTW, The BTS was shot on one of them with another camera and is ungraded. Guess which lens?
 

​I have a Minolta mounted Zeiss 28/2.8 that didn't cost me much (40 bucks) but that won't fit a speed booster.
But one that would fit is my C/Y Tokina 24mm f2.8. Its fairly decent. Not Sigma ART sharp of course but gets the job done and it cost €30.
Best way to find one is to look for an "old camera" in the classifieds or on ebay.
​I have made a super booring lens test today that includes it. I wasn't going to post it anywhere but a discussion on FB lead me to decide to edit it together. Feels like there is a lack of tests from certain types of lenses. Specially on the D16.
I will post later if it gets done. 

Motion cadencemo, I go so - 
here's something I whipped together - sony f35 - CCD - I softened the image in post to try to make it feel like super 16mm or god knows what - let me know your thoughts:
 

What I think is the only way it can be.
Me!  Me!  Look at me!  I'm typing on the Internet! Validate my opinion.  Validate me!  Let me know the camera I own is awesome.  Tell me I make great choices in the things I buy!!
Wait, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion?  :-)
I actually like all frame rates depending on what I wanna do. Seems like mixed frame rates in the same film could be exploited as a narrative tool as well.
...and slow frame rates too. I once shot some stuff @15 0degree shutter  for a cool effect.  

1. Because it looks better.
2. Because it suspends your disbelief. 
3. Dreamy is a form of imagination.
4. Imagination can create great art. 
5. Tell A DJ that vinyls are history. Now tell a filmmaker the same thing about 24p. 
6. Just my opinion. 

​In this clip you can see the difference between the A7s and the F35 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DY59GQ1Hu70

This is one of the first things I look for in a camera. It's almost as important to me as dynamic range. A crisp, pleasing motion cadence (similar to film at 24fps) helps induce that dreamlike state in an audience that maintains the suspension of disbelief so that the viewer can enter the story. It's one of the reasons why I'm drawn to Canon cameras over Sony, despite the inferior feature sets. Canon DSLRs and C-series cameras seem to have a more pleasant motion cadence over Sony F-series cameras. And it extends all the way up to the pro-series cameras. Every time I see a trailer for a movie shot on the F55, I can't help but feel that it looks videoish, rather than filmic. The F65 solves this problem via a mechanical shutter. Maybe the mechanical shutter seems to do a better job at providing a proper motion cadence than the electronic global shutter in the F55. That said, I have looked closely at footage from an Arri Alexa Plus (ultra-fast rolling shutter) and an Alexa Studio (mechanical shutter w/ spinning mirror) and I can't tell the difference in motion cadence. Maybe it all comes down to the way the processor reads the data coming off the sensor.
This is all part of what I call "mojo". It's the inexplicable subjective feeling that's completely divorced from things like spec sheets and bit rates. If a camera feels right to you, use it. Who the hell cares if it doesn't have 4K or high frame rates?
That said, I wish that CCDs would make a comeback. They always had fantastic motion cadence. I remember fondly the days of shooting on the HVX200 with a depth-of-field adapter. Even though it was a pain in the ass to use, the footage always had tremendous soul. The Canon XL2 will always be one of my favorite cameras. A CCD sensor is one of the reasons why the Digital Bolex actually feels more like Super 16 film than the BM Pocket Cinema Camera, despite the fact that they both have the same size sensor. And I would bet cold, hard currency that there are more Sony F35s being used out there right now than F65s, despite the fact that it's a dinosaur, an ancient relic from even before the Red One. A Super 35-sized CCD sensor = Mojo to the Max.

That's it, I'll just buy an Arri Alexa 65!

Jimmy, just fucking buy it.
If you don't I will!!!