Jonesy Jones

Great question. I will enjoy seeing other responses too, but here is my experience. First, I don't know that there is a standard, it seems. Watch Netflix, audio levels are all over the place from one show to the other. Same with DVD's. Same with TV. And movies/shows can even be extremely different from one minute to the next in the same scene.

I worked on a TV show for a short period of time and we had to mix levels at around -6 to -12 db. So that's about where I start. However, I also throw on a movie into the same audio system and environment and somewhat match. That is, I know, extremely subjective. So I kind of split the difference between -6db and my ears. 

Hopefully someone else chimes in with better info. But if not maybe my response will help.

Thank you canstin for what appears to be a very imformative reply. Thank you Ed for the original post. I comment on here, not because I really have anything to add to the discussion, but because this discussion matters so much to me. The thing is, I HATE youtube. It's great for research, but each time I post something there that I have created I absolutely cringe and die inside. The viewing experience, for reasons that I cannot explain, is atrocious. And for whatever reason, my experience with Vimeo is at least better than youtube. Is it worth the $60/year I pay? To me it is, barely, and I regularly consider ending that. I think Vimeo is slowly improving. For instance a year ago their player was so frickin slow, but these days it is waaaay faster. According to either Bloom or his buddy Miller, Vimeo was testing 4K on some videos, so I think there will be progress in that respect eventually. But I guess it would be nice for us to hear from them about what is coming. Again, I do not have much to add, other than that this is important to me.

Vimeo, are you listening? We like you. Please reciprocate that with some communication and transparency. Reach out to us now and then, even in this thread for instance. Ed has some good ideas. Talk to us about them. We are why you exist. Please don't forget about us.

Yes IronFilm, Deakins is referring to that Arri Zeiss 32mm, but I think it's not so much the brand, but the focal length. I assume his reasoning is that 32mm gives him a FOV he likes, and it's a pretty normal lens, now that I know it is still subject to the 1.4 crop factor. 

Ok. Well, sounds like I understood this all wrong. Thanks guys. 

I could really use some help. In a recent thread on this forum, I brought up, what I thought was a fact, about cinema lenses (lenses designed specifically for use on cameras with s35 sensors or film) being designed and labeled specifically for s35, and which yields roughly the same FOV as a DSLR lens on a Full Frame camera. In other words, a 50mm cinema lens on s35 would yield basically the same FOV as a 50mm DSLR lens on a Full Frame camera. That is the way it has been explained to me, though I have never owned a cinema lens nor have I had the opportunity to test this. To a large degree this is very important to me because when I read about DP's who shot such and such movies and which focal lengths they used for such and such scenes, I'd like to be clear that I understand how that info relates to my own personal equipment.

For instance, I've read Roger Deakins state that if he had to choose only one focal length to shoot a film it would be a 32mm. Obviously he is shooting on an s35 camera, so my question is, what FOV equivalent is that to the DSLR world? If we were to compare the FOV of his 32mm on s35, would it be roughly the same as a 32mm dslr lens on a Full Frame, or would it yield a FOV closer to 48mm (32 x 1.5 = 48)? 

I don't know if that's at all confusing, but this is really important to me, so let me just ask the question as simple as I can, what is the Full Frame DSLR FOV focal length equivalent to Roger Deakins' 32mm lens on s35?

Even that sounds confusing. lol. But please I would really love your help. Also, please briefly state your experience with both cinema and dslr lenses on both cinema and dslr lenses. In other words, I would like to make sure you are speaking from experience, not second hand information like myself. 

​I understand all that, perfectly. What I think you are missing is that cinema lenses do not have the same FOV as their DSLR equivalents. I learned this at Alex Buono's workshop. He was using a 25mm Canon cinema lens on a Canon with APS-C sensor, but it was yielding a FOV of (roughly) 25mm on a Full Frame. When I asked him about this he told me the cinema lens is designed and marked that way. In other words, our Full Frame focal lengths are equal to the same cinema lens focal lengths on s35. I cannot confirm this with absolute certainty because I don't own any cinema lenses, but this is how I have been lead to understand it.

​How sure are you about that? Here's how it's been explained to me... 25mm cinema lens on s35 camera is equal FOV to 25mm dslr lens on full frame camera. 

Actually no. Your'e right about the sensor's size being roughly the same as s35 film, however, cinema lenses are described in full frame equivalents. When Mr Deakins is describing a 32mm cinema lens on 35mm film, it is behaving like a 32mm lens on a full frame dslr. To achieve the same FOV on an aps-c sensor you'd need a 20mm lens (20x1.6=32). 

EDIT: I don't have this quote thing down but fuzzy said "​Isn't the 600D an ASP-C sensor, essentially the same size as s35 motion picture film?... A 32mm lens is a 32mm in this context."

Also, my explanation is probably atrocious, but the math is good.

This lens set is very interesting to me, but please Andrew, ask them to reconsider another wide in there like a couple others have suggested. I realize they are not selling to high end DP's but when you look at the upper level DP's there list's stay on the low end. Get a 32 and a 40 in there, or I guess the super 35 equivalent. I think a long lens is great to have but you only need one. 21, 25, 32, 50, and 100. 

Roger Deakins, a living legend cinematographer, says if he had to choose one lens, it'd be 32mm. I can't remember names but I know that I've read that other legendary cinematographers would go with about the same. So on your camera, that would be a lens in the low 20's. 

Also, don't worry about speed (aperture). 2.8 is good enough. In fact 4.0 is probably fine too. The vast majority of cinema is NOT shot with an extreme shallow DOF. 

Thank you and sorry about the late response. I was out of town. 

I'll check those programs out thank you very much.

Hey guys, I recently finished my first feature film (https://vimeo.com/103010031), though we still have not released on DVD, we hope to do that very soon. One of the things that has come up recently though is that we will be marketing this to a Spanish speaking market as well and therefore we need subtitles. I've never done this though and was hoping someone knew of a good tutorial or could point me in the direction of the quickest method for creating optional subtitles (subtitles that can be turned on or off in the menu). I have someone who is willing and able to do the translation, but I have absolutely no idea how this all works from a technical standpoint. I'm sure I can go fish around on google or whatever and find what I need to know, but I'm hoping someone here has maybe done this recently and can save me some time and get me right where I need to go. I'm using Adobe's suite so something within that realm would be preferable, unless there's a much better alternative. Anyway, thanks in advance. 

Good stuff Fuzzy. I like your perspective and ability to communicate it.

I was recently at the Shane Hurlbut tour thing and all day long he used Canon cameras, which, obviously have nice colors, but to me it looks like TV, high end TV. Then later in the day he switched to a BMCC without telling us and I was like damn, that looks awesome. It instantly looked more like a movie to me. Canon probably had better skin tones, but the BMCC looked more cinematic to me, which I realize is very subjective. 

What I'm trying to say is that I agree with Fuzzy. I think you choose the camera/lens combo that give you the look your after. If your shooting a glamour piece or beautiful people TV show, go with a Canon. If you're looking for an edgier look maybe a Sony or Blackmagic will get you there. 

EDIT: In the end, though, I think your audience wants to be engaged in the story or content, and I just don't feel like the skin tones are going to make or break that, unless they're way off. And all of the above cameras can get you there if used properly, and post can help too.

Thanks Fuzzy. I kinda wonder the same thing. Good stuff.

Would you please escort your sanctimonious attitude out the door.  I'm here to discuss with people not justify myself to jonsey jones.  You don't have to be Stanley Kubrick to know that Jaws The Revenge is a shit film.  Consider your 'point' thoroughly dismissed.

 

As for what I dislike about the grade.  Firstly its teal and orange which I despise, and it's not even done subtly.  There isn't much orange in these shots so its just teal teal teal beyond any level of taste or meaning.  It's just arbitrary messing around with color for messing round's sake.

 

Secondly its "the blacks" and that isn't in quotation marks by mistake.  For in some shots they do not exist.  But it isn't like they merely left the shadows milky.  It looks like they've heavily crushed the blacks taking all the detail out of the shadows but then expanded it back out again so that the black is now grey, so you've basically just got a lump of solid bluey grey for shadows.  Look at the guys face at 0:29! Is that how a human face should look?

No examples of your work? Exactly! Get out and do something dude!

Not sure how that grade abysmal. MattH, would you please post some of your films with examples of your grading work so that we know your reference point and so we can all see how it's supposed to be done. Thanks.

John, that's another solid idea. 

Thanks for your help guys. I dunno. Maybe I'll feel them out at the premiere. Still waiting for that moment of clarity. This is one of those things you never think about as a filmmaker. I spend all my time thinking about story and gear and such.

Hmmm. Now I'm even more concerned. :{

Well, the next couple weeks/months will be a great learning process that's for sure.

Yes JohnVid. The film is called Luggage. You can learn more about it at www.seethroughproductions.com or check out the trailer

That is actually happening as well. However not everyone will be able to attend so they want a copy to show those folks.

That just might be the solution right there. Thanks sunyata.

So I just finished my first feature film. My plan all along was self distribution, however, some interest has developed from a potential distributor. They are asking that I send them a copy of the film. They are willing to sign an NDA, but being that this is my first rodeo I just don't know how concerned I need to be about protecting my film. I understand I have some natural copyright protection, but I definitely do not have the resources to protect it legally speaking. Anyone have any experience or advice with this?

jonesy

Ebrahim, you nailed it. For commercial use I think this camera is probably just right, but for cinema... no way. I am definitely more interested in cinema capabilities and the ursa, as odd as it is (and btw this FS7 will be even more odd and heavy once equipped for cinema), is much more attractive to me. 

My belief is that if you have a great story that's well written with great performers and if your tech is good enough to do the trick and not distract or get in the way, then you have cinema (regardless of where it is playing - TV, internet, theater). If you do those things right people will get engrossed in the film and all the other things don't really matter. Of course, we all have our preferences of what cinema should look or feel like, but that is very subjective. I could give you mine, but would that really get us anywhere? Make your films look and feel the way you think they should. But don't forget story, script, performance, tech.... and in that order. My $.02.