Liam

I definitely felt guilty getting my first 50mm f1.4  for my apsc camera and how easy it was to get people to compliment me..

Interesting to read everyone's thought here. even though I sometimes feel like it's cheating, I do love that focal length and DOF you get - really nice for wide shots even, if you can get em. I've thought about doing a whole project on it alone. Always have thought the subtle wide angle and subtle telephoto to compress or exaggerate distance was one of the most powerful tools in cinematography - though I go back on that sometimes too, whether the audience actually reads into the visual metaphor the way you intended. plus, a normal focal length (or almost any focal length) can have both those effects based on distance from the subject. Usually it's embarrassingly just the fisheyes I notice a difference in on my own :/ Depth of field is a pretty big factor too. In horror movies for the classic deep focus shots, isn't it usually a wider angle as well?

wasn't 50mil on s35 the big thing for a long time? I'd thought that could be a way to convince the audience it was of that style or genre "Hollywood" (maybe to lull them into a false sense of security) - not sure where I got that impression really.

anamorphic and different aspect ratios I think make this topic harder. Can't exactly hear the advice of one of the greats on this, if they were filming 4:3 instead of 16:9

saw Rogue, thought it was soft, for sure - and sometimes shaky. maybe looked a little "vintage", but yeah didn't seem like film's natural charm, as I often can't tell the difference. (side note: this wasn't the film I saw recently that was clearly shot in anamorphic but shown in 16:9, was it? whatever film it was, that was annoying..)

EDIT: sorry it wasn't Rogue.. might have been Trainwreck? anyway..

pardon my ignorance, didn't even register that you were like the creator. very very impressive, Rich  

^ +1

Yeah I don't have actual worries about the color, since it's raw and there was a fair amount of ND that could've had an effect. DR and rolloff looked alright, though maybe a touch overexposed? or else I just sometimes prefer slightly underexposed. Thanks for sharing! Gonna be playing with it more? It'd be awesome if you could keep sharing more as you explore

sorry, old topic. But I was just remembering this surprisingly good B horror movie, Inside. at one point the killer is hidden beautifully in the darkness in the grain in one of the jump moments. Don't think it would have worked with a clean image. pretty sure some of it was on actual film, couldn't find much info - I would wager more grain was added. idk, just felt like it actually helped the film and especially the shot. not just in general style, but to tell the story right, which if you're a real cinematographer should probably be the first thing you look at.

Can anyone else think of moments like that? I think it's easy to argue black and white has helped certain films etc. Just thought it was interesting to think of this as an actual tool

peace

there are aspects of a camera that might get left in the dust because everyone's chasing after 4k, so I get the question from that standpoint. also I personally cannot handle 4k video editing on my crappy pc, so

read a book.

you don't think you need to make the jump to 4k, or you can't handle 4k? Are you asking if, for instance, shooting 4k on the nx1 has advantages other than the 4k itself since it won't really matter in the final image? (e.g. would you turn down 4k if it really was the best setup considering everything everything else? - but not filming IN the 1080p option of the camera?) Not trying to wrap around to the argument you really do need 4k, just wondering if this is a philosophical question or a practical one . don't know if it's helpful to say 4k is sometimes more easy to grade, punching in advantages, and better image by using more of the sensor.

would needing a lot of step up rings (pushing the rangefinder further from the lens) mean that you need to make slight adjustments on the focus of the lenses themselves to use infinity on the rangefinder as infinity? if that makes sense? like would "whacking" the rangefinder change focus distance by itself? just curious. I figure that could easily add up to a nuisance if removing and adjusting it often

not a chance :3 looks good tho

pretty sure there was some kinda crazy iso in an episode of Broad City, trying to use natural light I assume since it was steadicam movements through the streets with a lot of long takes. wasn't trying to be fancy in terms of cinematography I assume, but the content is enough in that show to make it awesome no matter what. trying to do a scene like that and stop down to f11... infinity iso is always helpful

g7/gh4 do also get close to full frame for stills with the speedbooster ultra (1.28x crop factor I believe?). Probably take canon glass better than the nx1 too(?)

1080p full frame, 4k 1.3x crop (between full frame and super35), 1080p super35 crop are the options. they're all decent, maybe super35 is better than full frame, but the 4k is easily the best

bingo! he's a little hit and miss I think - maybe has to be with his style. All the Light in the Sky is kind of a series of nothing events, but Drinking Buddies I thought was stunning. pardon me while I search for the films you mentioned :3

I'm also more of a writer than anything. Going for really human stuff, kind of like Cassavetes or Joe Swanberg, kind of episodic, but making sure to keep it all significant. I don't know if I'd be as comfortable as those guys with the actors improvising as much with my scripts, but don't have much experience there yet. With amateur actors and not being able to pay them much or anything, improvising a little might be necessary. I'm pretty much adding scripts to a drawer for now, tweaking them slightly and writing treatments for them just to be prepared. Actors are a big obstacle, and production budget. Though a slightly low-fi feel could be pretty great if I can get great performances. Like a bit of a documentary feel, emphasizing the acting even more. I have a really simple short that only needs two actors. I figure I should definitely try to do that one as soon as possible. This forum helped me feel more confident as a cinematographer, which is good considering I'll probably be my entire crew most of the time. Also, I've been interning for a friend's company, and his boss just sold a script to Clint Eastwood, so that'll hopefully lead to a lot of contacts, which is exciting. Sorry, trying not to use this as a rant about yourself thread, but it maybe kind of is for that  , which I'm not complaining about

Yeah I was only listing pluses for the a7rii. price is a big deal for the nx1, and slowmo appears better on the nx1 too. log is helpful, high iso is helpful, full frame is sometimes preferred. rolling shutter in ff mode is better for sure, right? and without a real test or seeing any issues in the real world as bad as I've seen in the nx1 at times, I'm not sure I believe just yet that the crop mode is as bad as the nx1, though it could be. pretty sure you don't need to transcode xavcs. E-mount is more adaptable for sure though it may not always be a serious obstacle. if you can adjust for shortcomings, that's cool, but these are still advantages. can you tell me where specifically you've seen muddy colors? sorry if you've already said, but this is a long thread

 FF, log, dynamic range, codec, low light, rolling shutter, IBIS, lenses. Also the DCI in the nx1 is cropped from UHD right? but I agree that the nx1 isn't dead

based on the price alone, I think we all can agree that telling the entirety of this this forum to buy the a7rii and sell everything else would be dumb... there will be shortcomings of the a7rii, and there will sometimes just be a difference of taste. just not helpful in a review to say this is the only camera you should acknowledge the existence of anymore

hahahaha, my bad.. hope no one thought I meant RED Epic... bad job tagging

Footage from the cx10 on the camera store tv's video I thought looked pretty bad, but they hardly even talked about it. Weird mushy contrast and clipping. Maybe it was the grade or because I didn't watch at the full resolution

Just a really cool place my sister works at. it's a whatever video and maybe too repetitive soundtrack. But sort of like some shots and editing in it.

right, I knew you weren't complaining at all  lucky people jumping on this deal! If I had any money, I'd give it a look

If it's not your only camera, and it was such a good deal, 45mm equivalent could be really nice as your only lens on certain shoots if you like. Considering now I mostly use my 80mm equivalent, that lack of wide wide doesn't sound so bad anymore. Glad this camera is having a bit of a resurrection from when everyone was so mad about the crop at first

It's not his video

is it 5 minutes for 120/1080p too? I thought that was just for 4k. Either way, might not need 5 minutes' worth of 120fps at 25% speed...

If it's only for slow mo stuff, but you have to option of a little 4k if you want, winwin

Well I've seen aliasing and moire on the soft, line skipping/binning/whatever 120fps of the nx1 a bit, and in compasion to the gh4's and a7s's lackluster slow mo options. Andrew has said detail from the rx10ii in 120fps is identical to the a7s's crisp 24fps in 1080p, and showed a few crops. It's a full sensor readout still in that mode, downscaled to 1080p. Maybe it's a little bit just hearsay and based on specs, but I'm pretty confident it's a step or two above the nx1's 120fps (which still looks pretty nice)