Jonesy Jones

I love what I'm seeing from the micro cinema too, but I'm absolutely thrilled by the 4.6k stuff too. Both cameras are really nice, but I think the 4.6k sensor is going to completely level the playing field. Just my 2 cents. 

1 hour ago, DPStewart said:

It's the 20mm f/3.5 "pancake" style.
One of the smaller 20mm out there. Just as sharp as any other pretty much. 
Not the fastest lens in the world, but it IS sharp all the way open at f/3.5....which of course becomes about f/2.4 with the speedbooster.
VERY well made lens. 
All the serious reviews gave it very good reports, so I figured that as mainly the Gimbal use lens it would be right on the money....IT IS. 
Not super cheap - $500 new. But It's a really solid lens that gives NO problems on single-handle gimbals. And with the Speedbooster the field of view is really great for most gimbal stuff. It pretty much stays on my DS1 all the time ready to go at a moment's notice. 
Expensive - but it completed my gimbal steady-shot setup perfectly so I'm glad I got it.
I've looked around, but I don't think there's any other 20mm that can go on a Speedbooster that's any better.

Can't wait to get the DS1. I am going to try the Nikon 17-55 on it. Might be too big but it's a little lighter and shorter than the Sigma. I am probably going to hold off on the DS1 though until NAB. You never know what might come out, or how it might affect current prices. Good things come to those who wait I guess.

2 hours ago, DPStewart said:

No, it doesn;t require it.
That 4th (and 5th for head follow) mode for lighter cameras is pre-programmed.
You CAN however go into the PID software and set the moter powers a little differently for your exact cameras.

With the normal stock software profile the regular mode has the motors turned up all the way to handle a camera up to the full weight.
And the "lightweight" mode (Modes #4 and #5) are set really low to handle things like an iPhone 6 or a Sony a5100.
My BMPCC with speedbooster and voightlander lens and extra battery was still a little to light for the regular mode, but just a tad too heavy for the lightweight mode - so I went into the PID software and just bumped up the motor power settings 2 steps only for the "lightweight" modes #4 and #5, and now it's perfect for my exact BMPCC setup. And the normal mode is still perfect for my other DSLRs and my NX1.
 

Which voightlander is it? I'm going to be looking for a good lens for the bmpcc and ds1. I've got a couple ideas but I'm still trying to sort it out. 

2 hours ago, DPStewart said:

Okay folks,

NO.
You cannot balance the DS1 with the giant Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 Art lens.
I used the Metabones Speecbooster's foot as the connection point instead of the BMPCC's own bottom mount, but it's still too front heavy.
By the time you move the mounting point far enough forward, the camera will hit the back of the cradle.
Now you could also add about 300 grams on top of the BMPCC - that would get the balance right - but by then you will be significantly over the DS1's max payload of 1.6kg.

Oh well...I never even suspected that would work anyway. This lens is a freakin' BAZOOKA.

The one lens that I really want to try that I don't have is the Samyang/Rokinon 16mm T/2.2 because that is a great lens, and their 10mm can be a little too wide sometimes even though it's a killer lens.

I have a couple of 20mm's that I've been using but I'm not knocked out with them. Nikkor Ai-s 20mm and a Voightlander 20mm pancake style. They are both "good" lenses, but they aren't "fantastic". I think 20mm is a length that just doesn't lend itself to great lenses maybe. I dunnno.
Anyone know of a really killer 20mm lens? I also have the Panny 20mm f/1.7 but that lens is also in the "good": category, but as an MFT lens I cannot speedboost it so it's really not a comparable 20mm even.
I've heard good things about the Olympus 17mm - but that's really close to the Sam/Rock...and the Olympus 25mm gets into the range of my Nikkor 28mm Ai-S which IS a great lens.

Anyone got any other recommendations?

Thanks.
 

Thanks for doing that DP. Very good to know. So, I doubt you have the lens, but my next question would be about the Nikon 17-55 2.8. It's slightly lighter, and slightly shorter, both of which would help. It's also slightly wider, which if it goes on the DS1, would be helpful with operation. If that doesn't work, then the Tokina 11-16, which is again, even shorter and lighter than the 17-55, and of course much wider. 

The 20mm on a BMPCC with the speedbooster ends up a 35mm, which is a wide normal. 24mm and 28mm are even more normal (42mm and 49mm) and that is my favorite range. Not for instant gratification, because there's none of that, but for the exact opposite reason.

9 minutes ago, DPStewart said:

Beholder DS1.

Wonderful.

Be prepared to spend zero hours tweaking it.
Be prepared to spend zero hours balancing it.
Be prepared to switch from a heavy camera to a light one by pushing a little button 3-times.

I think the Beholder DS1 wins for exceptional engineering. 
And it is EXTREMELY compact and easy to tote around.
Got mine with 2 sets of batteries that each last about 3-hours. So 6-hours of shooting without a recharge.

This thing has changed the way I approach nearly ALL my shooting.
 

 

 

I was going to ask about this after I see your breakdown over at the other forum. Glad you like this one. How hard is it to eliminate the bounce when you walk? Can you get a good take each time? Is the BMPCC and 18-35 a good combo with the ds1? I assume a little lighter and wider lens like the 11-16 is better. 

59 minutes ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

A unique, shallow lens mount would be awesome, but I doubt it considering they already slapped Canon mounts on their high end cameras.

It's a modular system. The central hardware has great longevity, the rest is upgradable, and (unlike RED) none of it's proprietary. 

I'd love to see more first party accessories from BM! They have a nice little array of cameras that cover a range of needs and price points. They should focus on delivering and supporting those. In the meantime, bring out some tools to keep people in the ecosystem. 

A few ideas: 

-a small, cheap Ninja Star-style recorder that uses SD cards. Maybe give it dual SD slots for simultaneous ProRes HQ and Proxy recording.

-an audio preamp/recorder with XLR, phantom power, dedicated volume knobs, and dual headphone jacks

-a battery solution that works like a base plate or battery grip. Include a few different plates for different types of batteries-- LP-E6, Sony BP-U60, Panasonic GH4 batteries, etc. Bonus points if it could plug into the camera and provide dedicated buttons for ISO, WB, REC stop/start, etc. 

-combine the last two ideas--make it like a YAGH box for people who work in real production environments, except with battery plates on one side as well as DC power

-a higher end ~19" production monitor

-4K Video Assist with a 7" screen

Pipe dreams mostly, but wouldn't it be nice? 

That list sounds very plausible for them actually. I hadn't thought of the audio recorder before, but now I can't imagine them not doing it. Sound Devices quality preamps with H4N price tag, in an ugly black box but who cares. It'll also double as an interface with Resolve. Mark it. It's happening. 

A larger 4K VA is happening too. 

I'd like them to do something interesting with long term storage. They could kill that market with something innovative. 

Something totally unexpected like a gimbal, or hot air balloon drone, or x-Ray machine. 

And much to many's disdain, they'll be bringing another camera too. That 4.6K sensor is going to change the world. They need it in a smaller body. Something in between the BMCC and pocket, probably limited to 30P. 

Mark it. 

I'm picking up my 360TB crystal reader/burner this week. It's going to feel good knowing my data is safe forever. 

http://mrctv.org/blog/scientist-intend-record-entire-human-history-superman-memory-crystal

1 hour ago, TheRenaissanceMan said:

Plus you'd be forced to pay for those components, even if you don't need them. With BM, you can shoot as stripped down or as rigged up as you want.

Yep. What they are doing is building an ecosystem. Buy it and build it, as you like. I think we are going to see more VA's and EVF's and what nots at the next NAB. Personally I'd like to see them offer their own low flange lens mount. Though for some reason I don't think that's going to happen. But whatever they do bring, it will probably be unique. Gotta love these guys. 

I'l most likely be getting one of these too, for the same reason. As a one man band all of the gizmos take too long or too much effort to set up and carry around. My favorite slides are the small subtle ones anyway. At 20 lbs it can carry quite a load if necessary. Can't wait to get mine.

Btw, would you mind posting a few slides and giving us some further thoughts when convenient. One of the things that I notice from much of the test footage is that it's not always smooth. Is it difficult to get a smooth slide with this every time?

7 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Their search function in general has been worse than useless since the beginning. 

Yah, whenever I want to search Vimeo I just go to google and type 'vimeo, the thing I'm searching for'. I get better results. 

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Does it also remove the viewer's ability to select 1080p manually from the HD button, only giving one option "Auto"?

Or just the 'default to HD' on our settings page?

Which by the way, was one of the reasons many people upgraded to Plus back in the day.

The viewer has the option of playback quality (1080, 720, 540, 360, and Auto), but they are 'hidden' by the HD button. You must click HD to see these options, and it is always set to Auto by default. We no longer have the option to choose that. However, under the 'Video File' tab there are the Player links specific to certain resolutions that can be copied and pasted, but these are not without caveats. (I have a Pro account). 

Here's the link right to their Contact page, just to save you 3 seconds of clicking with your mouse.

https://vimeo.com/help/contact

49 minutes ago, The Chris said:

A newscast is copyrighted content, nothing about it is public domain. In fact virtually nothing has entered the public domain in the U.S. in decades, you can thank the fuck-tards at Disney for that one because every 10 years when Mickeys copyright is about to expire they shovel truckloads of cash at lobbyists and get the copyright extended. 

Rant off. I just hate copyrights being extended in perpetuity for the sake of greed, that was never the intention of copyright protection.

Yup. As I mentioned before, Everything Is A Remix is a terrific take on this. If any here haven't seen this, do check it out.

21 minutes ago, User said:

It's seems 'The Chris' has moved the discussion forward by citing existing info on 'fair use' from what appears to a reputable org. Nice work Chris!
And a hearty thanks to everyone else for weighing in. Love this site and the folks who contribute in meaningful ways

You're welcome.

1 hour ago, User said:

I sometime wonder about folks 'overthinking' what other folks are thinking about. Entertainment law is something quite different that writing a research paper in school and it would be a bit bizarre to be standing in a court of law and trying to explain that a guy in a camera forum said it was ok. I have several broadcast licences on this project and I require facts. If you can point to those then be my guest. If not... well...

Yes, if it's that big a deal you should be talking to a lawyer, not getting info from a forum. We are just trying to help you, and we are filmmakers like you.

However, what I'm trying to say though is that I don't think this really falls under entertainment law in the way using an image, clip, music, etc would. You are not photographing a page from their book, you are quoting... Big difference. When you quote, you cite sources, just like a research paper. Just like professional journalists. Just like big name authors. They don't get permission. They cite. 

Additionally, there is far more protection for filmmakers than most of us think. For instance, I always thought you couldn't see logos in films, like a Coke can. But it turns out you totally can. If you are using it for its intended design, no problem. Now If you use that can for a bong, then you'll attract a lawsuit. The reason you don't see it in shows and movies as much is because it's free advertisement, and most productions want money for that. 

Have you seen Everything Is A Remix? Very interesting. Also, the book Pocket Lawyer for Filmmakers may be something you want. But for something this involved, you'll want a lawyer. I think the Publisher will play hardball. That's their job. Will be interesting to hear though. But I'm just guessing. So you'll need a lawyer. Or take a risk. You could just do it. Most cease and desist suits just require filmmakers to just take down content. If that happened, you could involve the lawyer then. Personally, I think you're clear. But I'm just a guy in a camera forum. 

30 minutes ago, User said:

Oh really. Can you cite a confirmed source for this info?

Did you ever write a research paper in school? I had to several times and was taught that the proper way to quote legally was to cite sources. So there are probably hundreds of books discussing this. I think you're confusing quoting/citing and using intellectually property like an image, clip, sound bite or music. Movies quote other movies all the time. They even borrow exact sets, camera moves, lines, etc. But borrowing their actual content is a whole other matter. I really believe you're over thinking this. Citing the source in the film and in the credits is probably more than covering your bases. 

Since its a doc, just have the vo or onscreen text site the source. If you were writing a book, you could include the quote no problem as long as you site in text and in sources. Easy peezy. 

Depends on the kind of book you are borrowing from, the amount you are borrowing, the kind of production you are creating with it, what you are doing to the portion you are borrowing, and if your use is a potential loss for the copyright owners. Lots of info needed. 

On February 11, 2016 at 11:50 AM, andrgl said:

Yeah, sharing the channel and the exact idea with this forum, scares the shit out of me. I used to be like that IRL, but realized how much time and effort it took to get where I was. That said, I bet a lot of people are skilled enough here to beat out my work.

I don't mind sharing my train of thought, how I worked out what might be successful. Basically: there's only so many ways to earn revenue on the net. I don't want to sell a product or service. And I don't want to rely on AdSense***. That left a few avenues open. (Seriously, research it: it's a list of 5 or 6 things you can do.) I spent months researching the perfect storm of audience, easy competition and highest return on investment.

My first year I dropped 20k on the business without earning a cent. Looking back now it's no big deal. Back then I was going to bed every night thinking I was wasting my time and money. Fortunately I love my day job and earn a decent salary.

The sacrifice was huge; I ended up losing touch with friends and family, and a serious relationship I was in imploded. Every free moment I had was spent on the idea. And sometimes when I completely burned out, I'd just lie in bed, regretting starting and wish I could wind back the clock.

Now it's on autopilot. I could sit back and stop creating content and earn for a few years. But I can produce videos in only about 3 days (fortunately I work 4 days/10 hr weeks.)

The pressure in my life is to come up with the next idea. Fortunately I cleared the: what if my next idea bombs? Should I just invest my money? -- hump.

  

***Relying on AdSense is definitely doable. The only problem here is you need to hit mass appeal, and have to be attractive to advertisers. My bet is that most of the "niches" are occupied. I'm thinking shit like, fashion, make-up, motive, firearms, sports... and who knows. There's a lot of room here. Originally I tried to cash in on doing "canon" stuff from large IP. It culminated into scantily clad women, doing Star Wars, Star Trek, Mirror's Edge, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Fallout, etc... this actually excluded me pretty hard from AdSense, (cellphone gaming apps LOVED to advertise on my stuff tho.) So I thought I could sell tie-in products. Biiiig mistake. The last thing you want in your mail is correspondence from a big law firm.

To be honest, this is the way to go if you want to do creative stuff with no other monetization tie-ins. Find out how to uniquely entertain the largest pool of eyeballs, with content advertisers will be fighting over to play their material on. Then when you hit enough viewers, start creating even higher quality material and put it behind a paywall.

What exactly is the niche here? That's for someone to figure out.

The shitty thing, is when you realize what people want to watch and can earn you money, isn't your creative idea. It more than likely won't even be something that personally interests you. You have to harness that enthusiasm for success and funnel it into what generates revenue. Exercise your creativity there and you'll mop the floor.

I liken it to Wedding events. I'd wager most people wouldn't want to do wedding gigs for their job. That said, if you approach the work with the same level of enthusiasm and creativity you would your personal project, you'll have a damn good chance at success.

 

Selling Out is the smartest thing I ever did.

Sorry the late reply. Been really really busy. Thanks for the info. Much appreciated. Thoughts all my tired mind can say. Good night. 

4 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

It's N scale model trains.  I just know it.

I'm guessing porn. I hope not, but I suspect. I really hope I'm wrong. 

Life is more than filmmaking, but I know what you're saying. It's still theft and it's a shame and a tragedy. 

However, I wonder how many here have participated in piracy? Films. TV shows. Software. Music. Books. Free Sony or Panasonic firmware updates. But hey, no one likes the morality police, until they're the victims. 

54 minutes ago, andrgl said:

I've managed to build secondary income from YouTube. If I continue to grow at the same rate, I'll out earn my day job in a few years. It's taken over two years (started in Jan 2014.) Managed to do it without running a single ad on my channel.

Is it what I originally set out to do? Nope. But I learned to pivot and "sell out". My first few ideas were idealistic. But they had no market. Totally unviable projects. You have pander, especially to your strengths. I realized an opportunity and exploited it for gain.

The experience has made me humble to be honest. When I hear or read someone's idea, I hope they succeed. There's nothing like grinding out a win. That said, my experience has made me shrewd. I am very critical of my own ideas. I very rarely entertain things that I'm interested in. Instead, I consider projects that know I can outcompete others at. I still expect to fail, but everything I do is so thought out. The work isn't fun, earning the revenue is what I like now.

Business income is damn sweet too. Camera gear, computer hardware and other things can be written off. The money is burning a hole in my bank account, if I don't spend it, I hit a higher tax bracket.

---

As an aside, I started out in video doing real estate spots. High end stuff. Know a few realtors. I shot HDR style for a unique look. Also aped some strobe-like compositing with a motorized slider and head. Was able to do multiple takes and stitch the video together. I burned out after a year of working whenever I had spare time.

Used the earned cash to start a studio. Hit YouTube with a sorta of video pinup girl channel. Stupidly used big IP. Quickly got slapped with a C&D notice. (Don't fuck with big corps, especially if your selling your take on their TDs.)

Sulked. Raged. Considered selling my gear. Learned about monetization. Did some research and found an epic opportunity. Spent a lot of cash up front and slooowly began to earn.

I would love to know more. $pecifics are what would be most helpful, but I can understand if your not comfortable sharing too much. But anything would be great. What you've found that works. What doesn't. How long it takes to begin earning something substantial, more than pennies. Do you market or advertise? Is your audience growing? Are you present on other platforms? I'd love anything you have time for. Thanks. 

Yah. These images are so sweet. This camera is going to be awesome. 

I believe that if you want to monetize from filmmaking, you will either need to sell yourself to someone with a lot more money than you have, or spend time (years probably) building an audience. An audience costs time or money, or both. Make great content. Give it away and promote the heck out of it. Then you'll have an audience, and a chance to create something that may be profitable.

6 hours ago, kaylee said:

hmmm interesting question... not as i recall...? im curious about how it felt different... i actually had a huge netflix marathon preparing for the new series lol

i think the cinematography/production design stepped up quite a bit after the first season, and edged forward from there as time went on. as a whole i feel like the look of the show changed when they moved to california... rainy foggy goth canada just fit the vibe so well, much better than constant summer socal

idk. the look of the show definitely evolved but i dont remember too much of a change around that time... how would you describe it? i must be missing something

Well I'm nearly certain there was at least a brief turn for the worse during the first part of season 4. Way more contrasty. I feel like the writing shifted then too a bit. Like they were trying something new and then realized their old formula was solid. 

Me and my kids watch everyday on Netflix. Love the look. Haven't seen the new ones. Question, did they go with a somewhat different look somewhere around season 4, at least temporarily?