JoshMonie

A terrible shame Vimeo has been forced down the same route as YouTube - all of this rubbish is what made me transition to Vimeo as a platform. A lot of the content on my page is sheerly personal projects; fun things I have shot whilst on holiday or on a day out that I have cut together because, guess what.. it's what I love doing. I am in no way benefitting from uploading these videos: I make no money from them. All I get is [hopefully] some nice comments from fellow users telling me how nice that shot of a tree was at 0:16, or vice versa. Pretty much every one of my personal pieces uses popular music. I chose those tracks because they are good, I enjoy the artist's music, I am enthused by them. That's why I pay £0.79 or £0.99 or whatever iTunes is charing these days. I would like to think the artists / labels could cut Vimeo and filmmakers like me (and all of us) a break in this case. Stop allowing a very small minority who upload copyrighted material for personal gain taint the reputation of the rest of us honest filmmakers. We can't all afford a $500 licensing fee for some bland royalty free track for our camping trip video.

No post sharpening was added. The magenta skin tones seen in the shadows at 0:03 can be attributed to a fluorescent fixture off to camera left not quite providing the fill light required. We have also found that the online 8-bit file has significantly more banding and colour noise than the original 10-bit ProRes files, and this may also be a factor. However, as Inazuma has mentioned, the raw files have held a large amount of data in the shadows and we feel the end result was definitely acceptable.

As everyone here seems to have already mentioned, sliders are definitely worth the initial investment. You can achieve some really dynamic and interesting shots without compromising portability. One thing I would say is be wary to not overdo it - it's very easy to get carried away and have every shot sliding in one direction or another. In my opinion, when overused, it can look cheap. Other than that, slide away! The Kessler Pocket Dolly is a great, sturdy and relatively affordable option. http://www.kesslercrane.com/Fixed-Length-Camera-Sliders-s/155.htm

24-105 F4 L IS if you have enough light. 24-70 F2.8 L II if you're shooting in unpredictable lighting circumstances (that little bit extra makes all the difference). We shoot a lot of Steadicam stuff with Canon zooms and find we get better results with IS turned off anyway.

As many before me have mentioned, I would decide on what camera you're going to buy before choosing lenses. The obvious influence it will have on your lens choices will be the camera's lens mount (EF, MFT, etc.) I shoot on the 5D Mark III and primarily use zoom lenses like the 24-105 F4 L IS for video these days. It all depends on what you're going to be shooting. I work on a lot of corporate jobs and the like where the shooting is run and gun and I don't have time to balance a steadicam or even think about laying some track. Therefore, the Image Stabilisation from the 24-105 works in tandem with my shoulder mount to get nice, floaty coverage. It also saves me running around like a headless chicken to get wides followed by close ups - I just zoom. If, however, you're shooting films or are in a studio a lot and have the time to swap out lenses and change the lighting, then primes are much more the way to go.