Liam

I don't know if everyone else has been seeing all the tv show reruns being like uncropped to fit 16x9. Mostly I'm just confused how it's possible. I guess they kept the original negatives and rescanned everything for higher resolution etc. But it seems they also shot (s16mm instead of 16mm) - or whatever format - in 16x9 with the foresight that they would be uncropping later when tv standards changed..? PLUS a lot of the lenses vignette like crazy because of it.. meaning they were using the wrong lenses for the camera?

But it's also weird to me that they'd even want to do this. It fits the screen now, but vignetting (a ton on That 70's Show), performances that were supposed to be cropped out (people breaking character on Friends etc), once I saw a body double whose face would have otherwise been cropped off on Malcolm in the Middle. It's bugging me.

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

But to get *all* of that?? Sorry, you need to wait for the a7S mk10 to get that! haha
 

Well it better hurry. I'm getting sick of my A7s7

Hitfilm express is probably the second best free NLE, after resolve (but a $20 add-on might be kind of necessary). Not that you're against spending any money probably. can also run on a lower specced computer

Don't you have an nx1..?

I think the A7s7 is really gonna be the sweet spot

Organic is completely different from cinematic I think. I'm alright with us calling House of Cards cinematic, but organic it is not. "Organic" can be shot poorly, in bad lighting, with insufficient dynamic range and resolution, at f8, on a one inch sensor. the important element would be the camera or grade, maybe a nice grain, proper highlight and shadow rolloff, maybe cadence.. "Cinematic" is the production quality argument, with HDR and high res, good lighting, and apparently doesn't need good colors these days (having just watched Sneaky Pete on Amazon)

2 hours ago, mercer said:

There was a great documentary shot with the D750 posted here about a year ago about a fishing boat but I can't seem to find it.

I think unless you really want full frame, the D500 is the better buy right about now. There is a 2.25x crop in 4K but you get all of the same features in 1080p plus IS.

Think that was the d810, if I'm thinking of the same one

1 hour ago, anakin316 said:

Any confirmation that the metabones XL speedbooster will even work properly with the gh5?

Thanks

It should. Only reason it wouldn't is if they rearranged the physical pieces in the mount or the shutter. But if it doesn't work, there will be a new dedicated one soon enough

Isn't apsc usually a little smaller than s35? Definitely in the case of like a Canon rebel. It's also not the only film standard. I don't know any of the specifics of The Game, but like Imax film is enormous. Anamorphic changes things too

7 minutes ago, Alex Uzan said:

Hello Jompais

The gh5 seems the one, but i'm not sure about going to mft from a APS-C censor. I dont care about low-light capabilities, since I use led and softbox in a light controlled room, but nice bokeh is really important when you shoot product.

Speedboost it!

I think for me, La La Land hit that little spot where I couldn't really have a criticism because all of it was either awesome as a throwback or just straight up magic. Or something to that effect. Trying to think of other films that had that effect (ones where it isn't just a me thing). I guess if anyone has every called a film "perfect", you can probably look back and say there was a "problem", but if you already see it as perfect, even those just become charming. So maybe means I was a little clouded by sentiment, but it does mean the film did a fantastic job of pulling me in. The style obviously isn't for everyone; maybe that let some people be more aware of issues as it went along..

I really wanna see Paterson too

Also, just a tthought, no one has done it I don't think, but give a heads up for spoilers.

I was just looking at cheap shoulder rigs. sometimes the cheap ones like rest on your stomach partially.. looks a little awkwards, but supposedly those can work well. but I was mostly for the specific 16mm style cat-on-the-shoulder look. Not sure the audience will really see much of a difference between that and regular handheld though

35 minutes ago, spinkscapes said:

Saw La La Land. Good, not great.

be specific!

Finally saw La La Land. Amazing.

Manchester by the Sea I thought had a lot of issues.. really freaking weird editing in one scene, but overall liked it more than I thought I would. Casey Affleck is talented.

What should we be excited about? What was overrated? Post a review or a title or whatever.

Or just say screw the Oscars. What won't get recognized, but we should all see?

Go!

a6000 has an evf and a little better of a codec I believe. think I heard the a5100 can overheat (never heard it about the a6000). you've got some panasonics in that price range, like the g6 or gm1. nikon d3300 looks alright for video, but no flippy screen or flat profile and the least flexible mount. canon is of course weakest in that range, but the eos-m is still up to par with their rebel line at least for video, and a hell of a price these days.

17 minutes ago, Kristoferman said:

Sure I'll pay 15 grand for an 8-bit "cinema" camera. Maybe it'll even have peaking!

I don't think they could fit peaking in if it's the same body

18 minutes ago, julienajarry said:

I do really enjoy it but interested how Andrew's compares - I would use the better. You can see a few examples here: 

 

Those look nice. I like Andrew's a lot, and his additional profiles and LUTs are great too. Could be fun to see how they compare, but I wouldn't want to nitpick too much between them if they're both good for skintones and dynamic range and using LUTs

3 hours ago, julienajarry said:

Does anyone have any side by side comparisons of Andrews CLog to James Millers? I would happily grab Andrews and do the comparison on my 1DX mark ii if there is not.

haven't seen any. do you have/enjoy James Miller's?

2 hours ago, no_connection said:

Using just overlay will leave dark and bright areas clipped without grain. I made a simple filmgrain network in Fusion 8.
I tried to emulate the 35mm v2 HolyGrain scan as my source grain. I think it's close enough.

Use the blend slider on the composit nodes to adjust to the material and desired effect.

BlackGrain and WhiteGrain adds grain back at the darkest and lightest part of the image. It will look bad if overdone so adjust carefully to add just a little grain, this will ensure that nothing is clipped at ether end, it will be monochromatic BW as grain at the extreme don't really inherit any color information.

The levels nodes can be used to adjust how the black and white grain clips if desired. But I think that looks digital really fast.

FilmGrain.comp

very cool, that's something I was curious about. how do I use your file exactly?

A sub-forum for low/zero budget filmmaking as a whole would be nice with the cheapest options in every filmmaking area, and this type of stuff too. I often feel a little dorky asking for the dirt cheap gear here, when it's such a broad range of people, and I don't want to clutter the forum. I'll have to google those. Tangerine was surprisingly good

@Bioskop.Inc nice, I wish I had a camera that produced the grain on its own.

I did some more testing. I think what was bothering me before was just because I was zoomed in way too far. Also adding a touch softness to the grain made it match my footage a lot better, and kept me from whining and fussing with other adjustments to make it more aggressive. Anyway, this wasn't totally about my issues, other ways of graining welcome.

David F Sandberg said an interesting way on his vimeo a while ago, one image of grain that he randomized on his own, I believe? Talented guy

@martinmcgreal great images! Have you compared the pocket cadence in prores to raw? I heard raw is notably better

3 hours ago, martinmcgreal said:

Whilst the 35mm look isn't really my taste anymore, it's hard not to fall in love with the D16's image

do you mean 16mm? - just confused, but if that's what you meant, you can speedboost it to help that (as well as low light)

also, a few things

your top requirements are now the most subjective (cadence, good color, softishness)

I was pretty sure the pocket was supposed to have some of the best cadence. you can add the 1dc to the best cadence list for sure by the way.

the f3 was the camera Ed used on his film Five Star. all handheld style filming, great test of cadence. maybe "not perfect", but "better than some" could even be an understatement

maybe make sure you're comparing to the kings in the cadence arena too (f65, alexa, film) and that you're not just now discovering a problem with your display or noticing 24fps as a problem or something, because of suuuper intense pixel peeping

I'm confused how you like graded 8-bit c-log you're seeing, but you're concerned about how well it holds up to grading (your looks may be more intense I suppose, or just in case there's a problem shooting you can correct it - but 1dc/c300 footage doesn't look too thin or artifact filled at all).

also, I assume you have experience with the anamorphic lenses in question, but that glass has potential to both make sharp 4k more cinematic (especially opposed to online tests using L-series lenses or god knows what) - and not be a problem for good 1080p to cover.

probably all of your options and more have been suggested though. it's okay to have opinions and be picky here, it's a big purchase. but maybe the only thing you can do now is mull on it. remember the audience could be amazed by just about any of those suggested and/or not notice the difference (not that you shouldn't fall in love with the camera, but if you hate all of them.. that's too far the other way)

23 minutes ago, Zak Forsman said:

where did you get your grain clip? I remember making my own a couple years ago and one thing I did was make sure the file was at 50% gray so it wouldn't affect the look of footage when applied as an overlay. 

It's the free one from vision color (35mm 1080p, in case they may have more idk), should be well made I'd think. I thought of a couple more ways i could maybe adjust it in my editor, but i haven't gotten around to messing with it again lately. Maybe it's just meant to be a little more aggressive like that.. I'm gonna start looking up other free ones

1 hour ago, Cary Knoop said:

While I occasionally add noise to video I never add grain. 

I must say I am not getting it, what is the point in degrading picture quality?  Grain is just badly distributed noise!

It's like adding vinyl scratch sounds or tape noise to digital audio recordings.

But, to each his own!

 

yep, just a style thing. Surely the compression artefacts, low resolution, possible sharpening issues, etc that my camera does on its own, and which adding grain seems to help with, could be considered.. not ideal. Adding grain has never seemed crazy to me, but I won't make you do it