Tim Sewell

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Some people do spend some insane amounts on their hobbies! Be it golfing, drag car racing, stamp collecting, fishing, or whatever!

Much to my wife's chagrin, the point I make when I compare my expenditure to that of friends who are into boats, motorbikes, vintage cars etc etc is unarguable. If one buys one's equipment in a thoughtful way, favours secondhand and doesn't always chase the very latest thing, cinematography/film-making is by no means an extravagant pastime.

Another mate of mine is into breeding rare prawns - I kid you not - where a breeding pair, or whatever they call them, of some species fetch over £500 a pop. When he adds up that ongoing cost (prawns, like humans, are not, sadly, immortal) to his other costs of tanks, filters, electronic gizmos etc he's got an at least Komodo-sized annual habit.

33 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

If you're doing this commercially and making money from it (which is the only type of person who should buy an FX6, unless you're a rich playboy getting a toy, in which case price doesn't matter... just get the FX6!), then the price gap between an a7S mk2 + basic accessories vs an FX6 is under two grand. In the long run, seems like a slam dunk decision to go the extra cost for the FX6. 

Whilst you're correct in the main with your advice, I don't really think it's up to you to dictate who should or shouldn't buy a particular camera. Plenty of people might want an item like this for artistic or hobby purposes, without necessarily being a 'rich playboy'. I have a FS5, an A7R2 and heaps of lighting, sound and grip stuff because I'm a crazed enthusiast and would-be artist, no playboys here.

My mate does up old cars as a hobby and he probably spends three or four times my camera-related costs each year and, guess what, he's not a rich playboy either.

14 hours ago, kye said:

Is that something to do with the S-Cinetone profile perhaps?  I don't really speak "Sony" so not too sure if that contributes to this look?

That sequence was graded slog3. He mentioned that later in the video. 

Having had and used both the Mki and Mkii C100, the latter is definitely a huge improvement in terms of usage. The DPAF is excellent and the EVF is actually usable! The only unfortunate hangover from the Mki is the codec. If you're planning to mainly use SOOC footage with minimal grading then yes, for the use case you've described it's almost a no-brainer. However, if you plan to grade to any extent you'll find the low bitrate 8bit files frustratingly thin.

1 hour ago, amweber21 said:

I am mostly positive this is just a place to store the rubber flap you remove that covers the micro hdmi and pins. Its similar to the MU-11 hotshoe unit. The usb flap tucks behind (you can see it on the front view). There is obviously something on the side we can't see, i don't know if usb or hdmi. 

It's been confirmed on DVXUser that the flap covers a port, so it does have HDMI pass-through. No word on the USB-C though.

1 hour ago, Anaconda_ said:

But does the EVF get it's display (OSD and image) from the HDMI port? If it does, then there's no clean HDMI out. If that all comes through USBc, then there's no SSD recording. The image and OSD shown on the EVF has to go from the camera to the EVF display through one of the ports, and I can't imagine it's coming through the two pins... those are for power right?

It looks like a mini HDMI slots into the camera, but if you look at the photo, on the rear face of the unit there's a 'HDMI cover', which looks to me like it's covering a full-size HDMI out socket. I wonder, if we could see the other side, if there's a USB-C out as well.

I've read quite a bit of stuff on there in the past, but this was the piece I read just prior to subscribing:

https://ascmag.com/articles/clockers-lee-sayeed?fbclid=IwAR13fMTIFuI_YENtrEBVtJQPvN3e-JUFv-61QmfazqxfDKWNWIhBY-0xdmk

'I'm also not particularly interested in hearing about what people do just because they're famous.'

Well sure, but what's compelling, I find, is reading about how people at the very top of their game choose what they're going to do and how they're going to do it. The stuff in the piece referenced about the DoP's film stock choices, for instance, has relevance to how we (me and @kye, for instance) as enthusiasts, can approach our shooting and grading to achieve different effects and moods.

Will reading stuff like this make us better film makers? Maybe. Is it worth learning how committed, creative professionals go about their work - I'd say definitely twenty bucks' worth, probably more.

I think I'm right in saying that there is no built-in anamorphic capability. I would be very surprised if there were user-customisable frames.

The cost for the print version outside the USA is fairly stiff, unless you're really keen to hold it in your hand.

35 minutes ago, kye said:

I'm tempted, but not really sure what their style and content is..  are there sample issues or articles around that best showcase what you're buying?

I think you'll find quite a lot of features from recent issues on the website.

American Cinematographer (the magazine of the American Society of Cinematographers) has a great offer on at the moment - 1 year's subscription to the digital version, plus full access to their archive (which goes back to 1920!) for USD19.95. I just grabbed one - perfect for filling those long lockdown evenings, I'd say.

https://store.ascmag.com/collections/subscriptions/products/american-cinematographer-digital-subscription-1-year

1 hour ago, MrSMW said:

10+ years ‘collectible’.

From now on I will tell people that our 17 year old Honda Stream isn't, in fact, a 'beater'. No. It's a 'collectible'!

On 3/12/2021 at 9:41 PM, plucas said:

Somehow the warm cast on my old C100i looked pleasing whereas the yellow cast on the R6 looks like a problem to solve.

I really noticed that when shooting interiors. Not pretty.

I'm sure I read somewhere that Olympus's new owners have an update to the EM1X on its way.

13 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

As I said, my work and income was never affected a bit (I work in TI) - all of you, who are real filmmakers, are having a really heavy personal toll. 

Yeah - I work as a software developer - I'm a hobbyist film maker (or 'artist', as I prefer to label myself!). I had to do a month of work for free to secure a new contract back in March last year, then I had a month out of work when that one ended, but since September I've been ok. Jobs I've done in the past included wedding photographer, pub manager and trade show space salesman - all industries that have been virtually shut down, so I can easily empathise with our fellow EOSHDers who are having a really shitty time of it. Let's hope things start to improve now, but we should all learn from this that we only exist at the pleasure of nature and that something we can't even see has the capacity to bring our ever-so-modern lifestyles to a screeching halt at any time.

56 minutes ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

Happy for you guys getting the shot.

It probably seems a bit insensitive of us to announce that here, given your previous posts. I feel huge sympathy for Brazilians right now and feel very angry on your behalves about the asshole you've got in charge there - hopefully one day soon he'll face justice for what he's done (and hasn't done).

30 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

You can already do this with third party apps and it does work very nicely - pick your lens style (Helios 44-M for example with bokeh swirl, or even an anamorphic) and it applies the fake bokeh very convincingly.

What's the app? Would love to have a play with that.

9 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

I'm supposed to get my first dose of the vaccine this week so here's hoping we're seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. 🙏🏻

Me too - booked in for Saturday lunchtime.

£50 camera ordered. Inspiration inbound.

Very nice bit of work - especially nice to see those colours in freezing March!

10 hours ago, scotchtape said:

I broke the tiny handle on it, but it's easier to operate without it

You and every single other purchaser - myself included!

17 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

You were claiming that casting a female VP in 1989 would be unheard of, and it would create a big impact to do so, and I just proved that literally decades earlier it was not just happening but not just the VP but even the presidency! 

But what's your point? Does anything that you've just posted somehow invalidate the idea that films generally reflect the cultures of their times? Does posting a poster of a movie set in the far future (then) with a female president, then a comedy about the problems caused by proscriptive gender roles - at the end of which the female president resigns when she gets pregnant - in any way counter an argument that all films are inherently political in that they either promote or condemn accepted cultural and political norms?

Or are you just doing that thing that climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, 911-truthers et al do, where they find one tiny portion of someone's argument that they can (kinda, sorta) 'disprove' as a way of discrediting that argument without having to expend the mental energy to actually engage with it and argue it on its merits?

Better to stick to microphones.

On 3/8/2021 at 5:15 AM, barefoot_dp said:

I think you've both missed the context of my post which was that working as an AC does allow you to see the mistakes in real time. I wasn't talking about watching youtube or reading blogs to hear about other peoples experiences.

Well yes - there's a reason why, in the *actual* film industry, nearly every DP started as an AC, every gaffer started as a grip/best boy, every producer (actual producer, not exec) started as a runner, PA and line producer. There is absolutely no substitute for hands-on learning surrounded by people who really, really know what they're doing.

1 hour ago, Eric Calabros said:

science believers

😂

4 hours ago, tupp said:

Here is another from 1964:

 

Well yeah, that really shows that I'm wrong when I say that films reflect the social mores of the societies that make them. Doesn't trade on sexist or heteronormative tropes in the slightest!

Unfortunately it's a feature of this world that when one wants other people's money to do something, one has to do it in a way they want. Submit your script, once you have a producer. It may well be the case that if there are no aspects to it that are exclusionary and they like it they'll be interested. Diversity doesn't have to be explicit as in - this character is a black lesbian - but the corollary is true - we can't have 'this character is white'.

At the end of the day, however, it may be better to try to find purely commercial funding for movies that don't fully satisfy the wishes and/or mission statements of publicly-funded bodies (which generally exist to fund projects that can't attract commercial funding).