tellure

Great shooting and editing.  Love all the quick close up shots and speed ramping, keeps things flowing and pacing high.  Would have maybe liked a few more slow sequences, and a better voice for the narration.  Really impressive overall.

I filmed this over 5 weeks in Colombia on a personal trip. I brought along minimal gear... well as minimal as I could  Let me know if you have any questions and if you are thinking about visiting Colombia I would highly recommend it!
 

Hey Everyone, 
Here’s a bunch of stuff I’ve shot, graded and edited for music videos between 2012-2018. 
The shots in the reel not done by me are the drone shots. 
 
For you camera nerds, I used......
Sony FS700, FS5, FS7, F55, A7SII, A6500.
Panasonic GH3, GH5. 
DJI X3, X5R. 
 

I don't see any apologies. I just see people that accept reality for what it is and how they will deal with it. I still don't understand why this is happening.
Why is this entire forum up in flames over a bunch of newly announced, awesome, in their own ways, cameras?
Why do we as a group choose to use the occasion for constant wining, competing, measure penises, attack and ridicule those who dont think exactly like us?
Why aren't we discussing what these new things will add to this community?
Why does everyone go to bash in the thread of their least favorite instead of having a pleasant conversation in the thread about the one that is their favorite? 
Positive posts seems to always end up in a thread about other stuff, just as flame instead of where it belongs.
3 new major announcements within a week or so + more to come = The most negative atmosphere ever on a camera forum = Psychotic
I remember when NAB, Photokina, etc made forums a fun place.

What year is it, 2009?
Shooting 1080p as a "work-around"?
We have plenty of choice for full frame 4K.
A7S II, A7R II, A7 III, A7R III, Z6, Z7, D850 and soon A7S III / Panasonic full frame.
You buy a full frame camera to shoot full frame stills and full frame video that looks the same as the stills. It's HYBRID camera.
If you want to shoot 1.8x crop, get a GH5S or a GH5. You'll have money left over for the EF Speed Booster.
I really don't understand why people are making apologies for such a shit spec.

To summarize. if we ignore:

This big missing spec. 
This other big missing spec. 
This lack lasture spec. 
This omission. 
And a few other odds and ends.

Then.... Canon made a "pretty darn good camera" which beats many others from 2015!

When I die, I want Canon to lower my casket at my funeral so they can let me down one last time.

I make a good living and was ready to hand B&H my CC# for one + the 35 1.8 and the 28-70 F/2.  I told myself I would not if the crop was worse that 1.4-1.5 in UHD.  Canon shot themselves in the foot again.
Canon is like the EX you broke up with a couple years ago - she comes back around every so often - you have a good one night fling and romanticize about the past.  Go out to dinner, talk about the 5d3 raw back in 2013, hop into bed.  Then the next day you hear she's still doing drugs - hasn't changed at all.    There's a reason you two broke up.
I wanted to be wrong here - haven't been excited about a camera for a while - I hate the Sony colors and overheating, hate Panasonic's shitty AF, etc.
Yes, but are you 100% sure it's UHD out and not just 1080p out?  I don't recall any Canon bodies doing UHD HDMI out.

I quite like the image quality in both these videos but the pacing is killing me.. in the first one with all the slow focus pulls from static background to a static foreground object (rock or piece of paper, etc.) are just too much of a snooze for me.. sorry, I couldn't finish.  I feel like for shots like that to hold interest they need to have at least some interesting motion going on (camera or subject), or just phenomenal composition / framing / color / etc., like gallery-quality landscape photography.  My suggestion would be to hold all the shots for way less time and try and tell a bit more of a story from the sequencing at least in terms of a progression between spaces or time frames. 
In the kid video I quite liked the tree climbing section at the beginning because it's all shot so tight and there's a huge 3D feel because of all the parallaxing of the branches and the body, but then it got pretty boring with just walking through fields and stuff so I couldn't finish it.  I'm sure it's an awesome video for a parent though, since watching your kid play is endlessly entertaining.
Sorry, don't mean to sound negative, I'm a total amateur here so not trying to come across as some kind of expert.  And just so this post is not all critique I'll put some of my own vacation stuff out here to be cut up :).  This video is from a trip to Granada, Spain a couple years back:
 
There's lots of static backgrounds in this video too, which can be pretty boring, so I tried to keep the visual interest with a lot of camera motion, probably too much in fact (most of it is walking with the camera on a gimbal, hence the title), and trying to find some interesting people scenes in the environments.  Tech specs: Sony A7R2, Zeiss 24mm f/1.8, Sony FE 55mm f/1.8, Sony 10-18mm f/4, PilotFly H2.
In terms of making static landscape shots visually interesting, I'm a big fan of Camille Marotte's stuff (example below).  He captures a lot of beautiful details in a travel context and often does a great job composing with very simple elements - e.g. the opening shots of this video with an out-of-focus arm resting on a boat, framing an ocean sunset or the sun flaring into the lens as it moves across the ripped edge of a tarp.  And of course there's the people.. in travel videos I find we all yearn to see the people since so much of what defines the flavor of a location is the people themselves.
 

Nice stuff stv, I thought the film effects and leaks were well done.  Especially when the leaks were timed to the little bursts of static in the music (unless those were added in post?).  I agree with anonim about the structure of the train travel breaking up the stops for travel moments was really effective.  There were a few train station shots that lasted a bit too long IMO but overall well done.

Hi, I've been a longtime lurker on this forum but never had a reason to contribute as I have next to zero experience in film making and cameras despite being quite interested in them. I guess you could call me an armchair enthusiast; I watch and read a lot of stuff online but haven't really acted on any of it. That said, last year I went on a trip to Japan and set myself the task of recording a bunch of footage with the intent to produce some kind of "travel" video clip. I soon realised that the process wasn't as easy as I initially thought it was going to be as I struggled to get any smooth stable shots. Just about everything I shot was marred with micro jitters and vomit inducing shakes (I was travelling light and did not bring a tripod). In an attempt to salvage my barely usable inconsistent clips, I did what all good amateurs do and threw on an excessive amount of overlays and light leaks to try and create the overly used "old school vintage film look". I know it's probably below the standards of this forum but here's the result.
 

I quite like the image quality in both these videos but the pacing is killing me.. in the first one with all the slow focus pulls from static background to a static foreground object (rock or piece of paper, etc.) are just too much of a snooze for me.. sorry, I couldn't finish.  I feel like for shots like that to hold interest they need to have at least some interesting motion going on (camera or subject), or just phenomenal composition / framing / color / etc., like gallery-quality landscape photography.  My suggestion would be to hold all the shots for way less time and try and tell a bit more of a story from the sequencing at least in terms of a progression between spaces or time frames. 
In the kid video I quite liked the tree climbing section at the beginning because it's all shot so tight and there's a huge 3D feel because of all the parallaxing of the branches and the body, but then it got pretty boring with just walking through fields and stuff so I couldn't finish it.  I'm sure it's an awesome video for a parent though, since watching your kid play is endlessly entertaining.
Sorry, don't mean to sound negative, I'm a total amateur here so not trying to come across as some kind of expert.  And just so this post is not all critique I'll put some of my own vacation stuff out here to be cut up :).  This video is from a trip to Granada, Spain a couple years back:
 
There's lots of static backgrounds in this video too, which can be pretty boring, so I tried to keep the visual interest with a lot of camera motion, probably too much in fact (most of it is walking with the camera on a gimbal, hence the title), and trying to find some interesting people scenes in the environments.  Tech specs: Sony A7R2, Zeiss 24mm f/1.8, Sony FE 55mm f/1.8, Sony 10-18mm f/4, PilotFly H2.
In terms of making static landscape shots visually interesting, I'm a big fan of Camille Marotte's stuff (example below).  He captures a lot of beautiful details in a travel context and often does a great job composing with very simple elements - e.g. the opening shots of this video with an out-of-focus arm resting on a boat, framing an ocean sunset or the sun flaring into the lens as it moves across the ripped edge of a tarp.  And of course there's the people.. in travel videos I find we all yearn to see the people since so much of what defines the flavor of a location is the people themselves.
 

It will use Bluetooth LE to communicate with my controller so a smartphone app could equally be used.
My personal view of that though is that its a bit of an overkill way to do it, especially considering the size and cost of the smartphone even though you might already have it. 
Using something like a small Bluetooth LE controller (a keyfob sized remote control similar to smartphone shutter release for example) is, to me at least,  a better way to control it as the beauty of doing it that way is you don't have to fire up an app on the smartphone so its a bit more instant, not to mention tactile ?
There'll be options for both though.

What I was referring to regarding the stops was measured stepping between values.
If you want it to be user variable (there are 256 steps of adjustment) then it can be like that but from a control point of view it makes it easier to use if those steps are divided between stops as tied to the exposure you are setting on the camera using the controller.
So if you set your base setting of f4 at 1/50th then when you changed to f2.8 or f5.6 it would automatically turn the ND up and down to maintain the same exposure.
I'll give some thought to the interface for a standalone on regarding variable control. Probably a small joystick (like the controllers on a PSVITA) would work best I think.
No, the box its in is purely to hold it while I was developing the code to control it. Its actually a cut up cardboard box from a USB power bank with a Cokin flat filter adapter grafted on to get it on to a lens as they were what was within my eye line when I was doing it!
The filter itself is as thin as a regular filter.
As a standalone unit it will obviously need some electronics to drive it so it will all be contained within a frame but it will be nowhere near as big as what you can see on the, erm, carefully constructed and lovingly sculpted housing its currently in.

I love the functionality of this device and hate messing with my manual variable ND while shooting video.  I hate to say though that I probably wouldn't buy one unless it was almost as small as a variable ND.  Maybe a bit bigger radius and thicker but not nearly as big as the prototype there.. it would need to be small enough to fit into a camera bag while attached to a lens.  I'm a hobbyist shooter though, I could maybe see a dedicated crew shooting with something that large.

I'm praying for 4k60 on the A7SIII just like everyone else but I'm not holding my breath.  If they didn't even do it with the much larger body FS5-II what hope do we have of getting it on the A7SIII?  Maybe we'll get a bump in the bitrate or something.
Or maybe they'll make the jump to h265 finally and we'll get better quality with the same bitrate.  And they can finally claim they bested the 4 year old Samsung NX-1.

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

I'm gonna call both/and here. There are no two types; we are snowflakes. We are all limited in different ways: some in our ability to master technical details, others in composition, in content, others still in understanding what makes a good image on an emotional level. There are simply an incredible number of levers to pull to create a stunning image: lens and camera choice, f/stop, filtration, lighting, subject, location, subject distance and on and on. The process is inherently imperfect and complicated by the huge number of decisions there are to make. What I like about Geoff's talk is that he doesn't choose one or the other. Yes, the talk is called "fuck the numbers," but then he goes on about an 8K scan of a classic film negative and the resolution in the chainmail of a costume in a terrible movie. Understanding the process of image-making is messy. It is a journey. Over time our attempts to master as many of these levers as possible will show on the screen but we will all have strengths and weaknesses.

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

It seems like the main message here is "If you learn the real skills of cinematography then the quality of your images will far eclipse all the high tech features, megapixels, and technical specs of the modern digital video age."  And it's true - great craft and artistry will win out over tech specs.
But I also think this is message overlooks some obvious realities about the nature of amateur and hobbyist videography - that tech specs often do increase image quality at relatively low cost.  Sure I could spend many months and even years learning great portrait lighting techniques so I can light a interior people shot really well, or I could buy a 50mm f/1.4 lens, slap it on my high-ISO/low-noise full-frame 4K camera, do a basic rule-of-thirds framing with existing ambient lighting, press the touchscreen focus with face detect and boom, I now have a fairly professional looking shot with creamy bokeh and sharp eyes in focus.
So sure it could be a much better image if I go much deeper into learning cinematography, beyond basic and overused techniques like point-of-focus shots.  But the shortcuts and some of the tech specs that enable them can be very high bang-for-buck for us hobbyists and amateurs.  Even more so if you're a vlogger or hobbyist that shoots run-and-gun or only with natural/available light under uncontrolled situations and you don't have the opportunity to do lighting setups or carefully framed shots.
I think Boyle's message is still correct and can even inspire us shortcut-happy hobbyists (I am firmly in this category) to go deeper.  But it does miss the point for a huge chunk of the videography audience, since few of us have the time or commitment to achieve the level of artistry he's calling for.  Technology has enabled us to generate images that make us and our fans/friends happy, often with an investment that matches our commitment or resources.  All of us are trying to maximize our return on investment, whether that's in time, money, or stress/difficulty spent learning a technique or tool, and technology has definitely escalated the return on investment ratio.

An hyperlapse and drone video of the beautiful city of Buenos Aires. The aerial part was filmed with a DJI Mavic Air which is a very capable drone.