Jonesy Jones

According to this graphic my idea of flash drives is actually the best. Though maybe not in typical thumb drive form but sd instead. That was actually my first instinct but just figured that the usb drive was convenient, but if they're not as good I'll just go with the sd version. 

What do you guys think? What's the best affordable longterm solution out there right now?

I have been thinking about using a thumb/flash drive (or a bunch of them) as a possibility. They are not too expensive these days. Like this one. 

My thought at this point is not so much for storing all the source files and everything, but instead render out a few uncompressed versions (graded, ungraded, no transitions, etc) of each project and store those on the drive. I realize they don't last forever just sitting there, but my understanding is that if you fire them up now and then they could very well last forever. 

But what about the source files. I could live without them nearly always, and some projects could even fit on one of those drives above. 

What are your thoughts? Are there better affordable solutions out there?

It crops way in on the footage. I think this definitely has its place, but folks that use gimbals probably don't want to lose 25% of their footage.

As has been discussed in the past, Red blew this opportunity several years ago with the Scarlet. All Blackmagic did was deliver what Red promised. And Blackmagic continues to be as disruptive as Red thinks it is, without the continual boasting. Red does have a name and that counts for something. My impression is also that Jared is way smarter (and not as handicapped with a giant ego) as Jim, so it wouldn't surprise me if he has something legitimately intelligent up his sleeve, but can they deliver in under 2 years (and somehow people complain about Blackmagic's 3-4 month additional release)? Red also needs to bring down the cost of all it's proprietary accessories. Red can do all this..... but will they? Guess we'll see soon enough. For now, BM and the URSA mini have my money, and it would take a bold move to change that, unlike Sony's wimpy attempts.

Experience was good. Simple and straightforward. The footage did come graded, and that's how I wanted it. I had no desire to spend time grading it. But to my knowledge, I believe you can submit both, graded and non. Probably the graded will be purchased more, but some may like the option to grade. 

Funny, corporate stuff is exactly what I used. I could see the family stuff working too. 

Ricardo, imagine you are a corp creating a vid to promote a new product or service. What would you need? Btw, I think your wine stuff is a great start. I have a friend who lives in wine country who does nothing but design websites for wineries. Definitely a market.

Nice vid. Sad to me that she looks down on being a mom or wife. Highest callings in the world. Good job though Ed. You definitely have a recognizable style, which is a good thing... great thing.

I've been thinking about stock footage too. I don't have a 4K camera, which I know isn't a requirement, but I feel like I'm limiting my market a tad if I don't shoot 4K.

One thing I really think you need to do is think like an end user. How and where are these clips being used? I've used stock before, but having a good sense of this will help you determine what to shoot and how to shoot it. 

Have you tested this next to more than 1 Prime lens? I have, with 2 different copies of the Sigma 18-35 against 2 different primes. Same results. The Sigma is more like a T2.8 or slightly better at best. With the booster its going to be close to T1.8. Again maybe slightly better. T1.4? Maybe. Definitely not T1.1. 

I would happily admit that I'm wrong though. I'd love to know that my lens is faster than I think it is. My love for this lens would only increase. If you have run any tests regarding this I'd love to see them. 

From the sound of it, I'd say keeping your 12-35 is the better option and invest in lighting.

Also of importance, when you use a stabilizer its usually best to stop down a ways for focus reasons, so you're going to lose even more light. 

Good luck and God bless.

I suspect the 12-35 is not a T2.8. My suspicion (I've tested this a bit too) is that most zooms suffer higher light loss than primes, but I wouldn't know what it's transmission is, as I don't have that lens. However, with the Speedbooster you will DEFINITELY get a stop more light with the Sigma (probably very close to T1.8), but again, that's an additional co$t.

I thought so too. So I ordered another copy only to find the same results. It may be slightly better than T2.8, barely, but not by much. Check out my post on this. http://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/8536-is-the-sigma-18-35-18-really-18/?page=1

I also did more tests but was just too lazy to post the results, but they were all the same.

Well, I have the Sigma 18-35 and it's my besty. I can't say enough about this lens, but keep in mind that even though it's F1.8, it's more like a T2.8. Now with the Speedbooster you will get another stop of light, but you're gonna spend another couple/few hundred bucks for that. But I do love the sigma and I think in the long run that lens is more practical as you can use it on more cameras. 

Can't go wrong with lighting better though. If that's within your budget, you should do that anyway.

So, I've heard that 70% of what you see in the movies is actually what you hear. I for one fully believe this. I have experienced this over and over both as a filmmaker and audience. With that said, I have just discovered this website http://www.sonniss.com/sound-effects/. Maybe you know of this already, but if not please check it out, it'll be worth your time. Amazing sound fx (and music beds) at VERY reasonable prices with simple and straightforward license. Can't believe I've never seen this before and I wanted to share. In my opinion, this has the potential to set you apart as a filmmaker, depending on what kind of productions you're into I guess. 

Anyway, enjoy. 

Don, this is great. Is there such a thing that factors in anamorphic? Recently when that Revenant trailer came out everyone was talking about the big 65mm sensor plus anamorphic whatever and how a 40mm was equiv to a 20mm or something and I was lost. I'd love to know how to do this. Thoughts or tips? Btw, I don't really have the desire to shoot anamorphic, but I'd love to know how to convert the FOV to reference some of my favorite movies.

So then my thought would be to explore the different focal lengths using that lens. Its got all the ones you mentioned, 21, 24, 25, 28, 30, 32. Then buy the primes in the focal lengths you really like. When it comes to vintage glass though, in the end you are going to find that the Sigma is as sharp or probably sharper, and with better coatings. Vintage glass yield beautiful and unique images though, but it's an expensive addiction. If that's something you can afford then cool. I'd love to still have my set of Leica R's.

Doesn't Peter Jackson own like 50 Reds. And James Cameron is close behind I think.

I guess there's a difference between them and true DP's though. But if I'm Richard Deakins or Bob Richardson and I want to shoot the flowers in my back yard, I have probably a couple dozen numbers I could dial and an Alexa will be there in like 15 minutes.

There 's a 28mm built into the Sigma 18-35mm.

I love this idea Don. Can you teach me more about this? Or point me in the direction of a chart or something that references focal lengths to degrees? This would be super helpful. I hate the whole s35 or FF thing because it's so dang confusing. Throw in anamorphic and I'm totally lost. If I can get a reference for the degrees, I for one will start using degrees instead of focal, or at least use them together.

Ok. I understand what you are saying now.

My theory, and obviously this is purely my opinion, is that there is a bit of instant gratification with anything roughly 75mm equiv and up. Roughly 35/40 and lower is also 'easy' to yield interesting results (or just the necessity of a wide FOV to capture the limitations of space). But 40-60 is called normal for a reason. We're used to it. No instant gratification. Again, my theory is that this is why a lot of the traditional cinematographers like this range (28-40 on s35). Anyone can slap on a wide or tele and get interesting results. But with the normals you are forced to use everything - good set, lighting, movement, blocking, etc. The camera and lens get out of the way and the story MUST take over. I feel like this is the heart of cinema. 

Not everyone will agree of course. There's more that one way to make films. Just my $.02. 

Yes, you can use that lens on either, but it will yield a different FOV with each film/sensor size. On Vista the 50mm will yield a FOV of 50mm (and 50mm FF equivalent). On S35 that 50mm will be closer to 75mm. 

Also, just to be clear the 32mm that Deakins references in the article you posted is roughly a 48mm equivalent, very close to 50mm equivalent... so to each his own. Personally I love Deakin's photography. 

35mm would be different on s35 or FF. Are you saying you like 35mm through 50mm? Because that is about what 35mm is on each one respectively. 

Exactly, so on S35 a 21mm is pretty close to 30mm on photographic 35mm or FF. 32mm is equivalent to mid to high 40's. The 28mm you are referring to is like 42mmish. These are not ultra wides and still pretty normal, therefore not too exotic. 

Well just to be clear Deakins 21mm is actually closer to 30mm in 35 ff equivalent right? Also he is on the record for saying 32mm would be his choice if he had to pick one. That would be closer to 48mm ff. So those are interesting focal lengths. 

What I've noticed is that traditional cinematographers like medium wide to normal. This why I love the sigma 18-35. On any crop sensor it gives me that and everything in between. 

I really don't know if you are serious or pulling our legs sometimes Zach. I'm going to assume you are serious and take this risky risk.

Not including lenses, tripods, and other gear that would be necessary for any camera rig, I see the URSA mini costing roughly $8K for the box, media, and accessories (including the viewfinder). Shooting 4.6K raw at a 4:1 compression, a 2 hour feature (at a shooting ratio of 15:1) will cost about 15TB. 4TB drives can be had for about $150... times 4 (16TB) brings you to $600 for 1 copy of all your footage. Multiply that by 3 for triple backup brings you to $1800, plus the $8000, and you're looking at just short of $10K for the camera and storage. Not sure where your $20K estimate came from. I also don't know anything about Kinemax, but I know that I'm way more comfortable with Blackmagic from a customer service and repair and company history standpoint. Something to think about.

EDIT: the above data costs I believe are based on a 30P fr. Assuming you shoot at 24P you should see a 20% savings on data, which probably won't save any $, but give plenty of room for overage.

These images look awesome for commercial shoots, TV, and docs. But I don't prefer it for a cinematic look. I will be interested to see what raw looks like with this camera. Do we know if anyone has tried this yet?