Jonesy Jones

Thank you Lucian.

Wulf, I appreciate the compliments.

Matt, you nailed it! :) 95% of this film was shot with a 7D. The only part of the trailer that is not 7D is the sand at the very end... which is GH3. Also, thanks for the tech suggestions.

Inazuma, thank you for the feedback. Much appreciated.

Filmed in southern California. Actually though, the cameras did fine in the sand. They're built pretty durable. Believe it or not, the gear that had the most trouble were tripods and vari nd filters.

Been working on this one for a while and would love to hear your thoughts... critical or otherwise. This is the trailer to a feature film with a runtime of about 80 minutes. Was made with less than $8000 and a TON of sweat equity. Would be happy to share more info about the film if there is any interest. www.seethroughproductions.com I'm also curious to know if the camera used is obvious. I assume it probably is. Anyway, thanks for looking. jonesy

So, just a quick question, am I allowed to post a trailer here, or will that result in a forum whipping? I know that's kinda what the screening room is for, but no one ever goes there and I'm sure you'd get a lot more traction here. I have a trailer I think some folks would like to see and know about but I don't want to overstep my boundaries. It's not my house after all.

+1

Really great thread. Thank you for asking these questions (great original post) and for those offering their knowledge and experience. With that said, can anyone answer this question? Do the lower .3-1.2 tiffen ND's not have the IR protection that the higher 1.5-2.1 ones do? If you look at the BH site it specifically mentions this feature for the higher ones, but not the lower. But when you buy them altogether in the kit the IR feature is listed as if they all have that feature. Does that make sense? Here are the links. See what I mean? Lower http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729107-REG/Tiffen_W77INDNDKT_77mm_Indie_Neutral_Density.html Higher http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729157-REG/Tiffen_W77INDUGKT_77mm_Indie_Upgrade_Infrared_Neutral.html Kit http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/729154-REG/Tiffen_W77INDPROKT_77mm_Indie_Pro_Infrared_Neutral.html

Andrew, just out of curiosity, does this mean you know something that you can't tell us, or are you simply stating what is most likely the obvious hand writing on the wall?

hmcindie, good list and good examples. You're right, I hadn't noticed those, but that's because they are the exception, not the rule. When you look at cinema what sticks out to you is NOT shallow dof. And as Axel said, those shots could easily be achieved with an S35 sensor, even m43 for that matter. As I suspected, this discussion of FF vs S35 seems to come down to dof, which again, is of almost no importance for me. I definitely think there's a time and place for it, and it is kinda nice having the option. But the microscopic dof achieved with FF is almost pointless imo. Also, I don't buy this claim that FF is different than S35 with speedbooster. A 35mm is 35mm however it is achieved. Anyway, thanks for all your input everyone. It's been very educational.

Not everyone. Something else to throw into the mix is that cinema lenses are designed for S35.

Honestly, if they reshot Good, Bad, and Ugly, I would puke all over myself... on purpose!!! That film is utterly gorgeous. That is the last thing that film needs to redo. My biggest complaint about that film is the audio, which is atrocious. Really really bad adr. That aside, it's an amazing film. I think the thing that turns some folks off is the lengthy story development. It takes like 45 minutes to get to act 2. That was pretty typical though back then. Our attention spans these days are

Question, do FF in crop mode give you the same res? IOW, will FF 4K give you 4K in crop mode? I don't think so, which would kind of defeat the purpose.

Again, don't want to be argumentative, but this kinda flies in the face of what I have heard dp's (Roger Deakins for instance) say. That's not to say that lighting isn't extremely important, because it is. But composition is priority #1.

This is an extremely good point. Then you kinda get the best of all the worlds. However, with Red, as I understand it, they use pixel binning. That's why they offer 5K and 6K, so that they can result in super crisp image once debayered to 4K (I may have that wrong but that's how I understand it). So shooting with a Red in cropped 4K mode won't actually give you a terrific 4K image, unless you're delivering in HD.

Can you give me an example of this? I'm not trying to be argumentative at all, but I just don't see this, really ever. What's 1 example of super shallow dof or creamy bokeh from a classic film or a modern film shot is classic film style (not interested in TV or internet videos either). I'm sure they exist, I just can't think of any. Also, I have not suggested that a dp's only job is to place and frame cameras, but rather it's the most important part of their job.

It seems like what I'm hearing is that it boils down to DOF and bokeh (yes I know those are different). Again, I'll go back to my point that if you are interested in making movies that look like movies (which I am and I realize not everyone is), then those two things aren't really that important. I could be wrong but I seriously doubt that classic cinematographers were at all concerned about dof or bokeh. What I hear coming from their mouth is that it's about composition, which is directly related to fov and camera placement. Yes, dof and bokeh will often give you a nice instant gratification, at least that's been my experience, but I am learning that it's really all about composition (fov and camera placement). I guess the point that ef and nikon mount cameras can't take a speedbooster is valid. I hadn't thought of that. But E mount aren't the only cameras that can take a speedbooster, m43 can as well. And my point isn't completely about getting back to the full frame equivalent, but getting 2 lenses for the price of 1. As I understand it, a 35mm on a S35 camera with speedbooster gives you roughly a 35mm, and without the speedbooster is more like a 50mm. 2 lenses in 1. I realize there are some bokeh and dof differences between a 35 on a FF and a 35 on a S35 with speedbooster, but stop them down and I don't think the difference is much. I think everyone has different objectives and so this may not apply for everyone, but for my interest (making movies that look like movies) I believe I'm on to something. But there are a bunch of other things in that equation as well. jonesy

So this is just a simple little post that has nothing to do with creating division between anyone regarding sensor size. I have no emotional attachment to any particular sensor size, so if I am wrong, I would love for you to tell me why. That's actually why I am creating this post. I would love to know if there is something I am not considering. This may be old news for some, but it is something that has just kinda occurred to me lately and I thought it was worth sharing. Maybe I'm right, and maybe we need to let camera makers know that crop sensors are better. My reasoning behind this has almost everything to do with FOV (field of view), and the combination of our lenses with the advent of speedboosters. Lets say I have 3 lenses, a 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm, AND a speedbooster. And let's say I have a camera with S35 sensor and the speedbooster gets me the equivalent of full frame (or close enough for discussion). By using this set up, I have now doubled the focal length possibilities of my lenses. In essence, I now have 6 lenses. Used WITH the speedbooster I have something close to a 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm, and WITHOUT the speedbooster I basically have a 30mm, 50mm, and 130mm (or thereabouts). What I'm saying is that a speedbooster and crop lens combo give us 2 focal lengths for each lens. Now, that may not seem like a big deal at first, but if you choose the right focal lengths, you may only need to get half the amount of lenses, which is kind of a big deal. This of course works with other crop sensors too, though I feel like the S35 size has the best of all worlds. I guess the first thing full frame lovers will point to is shallow depth of field, and the loss of some of that with crop sensors. However, I believe you get most of that back with a speedbooster, but more importantly, is that really a big deal? Now, just so you know, I've been shooting seriously since before DSLR's, back in the 1/3" (and smaller) days. I know all about the crappy DOF before DSLR's. When DSLR's came out I too got all hyped on the shallow DOF that could be achieved. I'm guilty of overusing it. Way guilty. I've heard people time after time after time talk about shallow DOF and wanting to have the option and how it helps achieve the "film" or "cinematic" look. But then I actually watched movies. Where is this shallow DOF? I don't really see it. I mean, pick a movie that really looks like a movie, Jaws, The Godfather, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, Shawshank Redemption, or any other movie for that matter. There is very little shallow DOF, if any. I mean, I'm shooting at like F8 or F11 to get the cinema look. The other argument that I guess full frame folks would make is light, and the xtra stop you get on full frame. But again, don't you get most of that back with a speedbooster. Not too mention, doesn't it seem like these sensors will soon be ultra-sensitive anyway. I think the A7S (yes I know its full frame) is probably a harbinger of things to come with sensors at all sizes. Light will be easy in the very near future. So, am I missing anything? If not, maybe crop sensors are better and we need to vocalize that when possible. These are just some of my thoughts. Would love to hear yours.

This was by far the camera that had me the most excited at NAB this year. I had not heard an actual dynamic range figure, but if 15 stops is true, daaang!!! Shoot, I'd be happy with 14. I realize this is not a straight up competitor to the GH4, which is fine with me. The A7S and a Shogun should be a pretty dope combo. The thing that has me most concerned is the 8 bit out. Looking forward to seeing some more tests. I'm guessing we'll be seeing quite a few in the next month. Btw, if anyone who has the opportunity to test this camera reads this, please shoot some blue skies and some difficult sunshine/shade shots.

Excellent resource. Thank you.

Thanks varicam. I've thought about that too. Might very well be something I get into at one point. It's a little more work for me right now since I don't have an audio interface to work with, but the vocoder is something I have been interested in for a while.

Yah. I've been playing with that, but I have been looking for something that I wasn't able to produce. But I just discovered a nifty little trick. Keyframing the volume up and down rapidly creates a cool doppler, or growl effect. Very cool.

Does anyone know of some good sound fx tutorials, or libraries for that matter? What I need is some creature/demon/alien sound fx, but not big monster roars. More subtle, like when the actor hears a creature that's behind them and then they turn around to see it. Or a subtle creature quickly moving by unseen. If you watch the recent Godzilla trailer for instance there are several low fluttery (I don't know what else to call them) sound fx that kinda sound like a growl. They're probably digital, but they're awesome. I could really use your help, but please no cheesy witch cackles or demon hisses. Thanks in advance.