Zak Forsman

1 hour ago, mercer said:

Btw, your company's new feature... Dead Bullet looks great... can't believe it was shot with a gh4. 

 

thanks, the DP is a talented guy.

1 hour ago, mercer said:

@Zak Forsman and @Bioskop.Inc with your Micro and Pocket footage, respectively, do you guys denoise your footage before your correction/grade and then add the film grain as a title grade over the entire project... or do you just let BM's organic noise add to the grain effect?

 

 

Usually I denoise, sharpen, and use DaVinci's new-ish built-in grain on the clip level. I get a lot of studio features in my line of work (freelance editor) and the grain they add is very, very similar to what DaVinci offers. I remember noticing it when i cut this piece for Triple 9. Youtube compression kills the grain, but in the master, I was taken aback by how heavy it was. This and others have been a nice education on how studio pictures implement it.
 

On 12/14/2016 at 5:57 AM, Liam said:

 

Right, that's the way I'm doing it now, which I'm unsure about. The milky haze is there unless I boost the contrast all the way and make it not at all subtle

 

 

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. 

the old way was to put your grain on a video layer above the clip and set its blend or composite mode to "overlay" and then to use a contrast filter on the grain layer to dial in the intensity. 

I always assumed the EDIT function had a time limit -- a 30 to 60 minute window to make changes.

I hear ya. In this case, it's not the same as lowering the playback resolution or "video quality" for better performance. Avid has both. Two different things.

2 hours ago, Cary Knoop said:

The statement above does not make any sense. 

If you do not transcode a video file you don't have a proxy for it.

 

 

 

 

 

Avid's proxy mode doesn't generate new media. It refers to the full res media but gives you the option to present it as a 1/4  or 1/16 resolution. So if you've got 4K DCI footage, you have the option of 2K resolution or lower. If you've got UHD footage, you've got the option of 1080 or lower. Avid has had this for nearly two years.

1 hour ago, JurijTurnsek said:

If a computer would be powerful enough to transcode you source media to a lower quality proxy on the fly, then you wouldn't need proxies at all. And since proxies are used when a computer is not powerful enough, there must be some files stored somewhere where you can't see them (don't fool yourself). Kdenlive for Linux uses a dedicated proxy folder and names the files by the md5sum or some hash value.

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avid's proxy mode doesn't register any noticeable use of drive space. there's no transcoding of new media involved. 

I've bought the Aaron Sorkin screenwriting and Werner Herzog filmmaking Masterclass. There's some great insights in there. Each was about 5 to 6 hours of material. I wouldn't consider them to be comprehensive learning experiences though. Expect to pick up some useful tips at a max. That being said, I do enjoy the opportunity to read or listen to artists I admire talk about how they work. Might get the Hoffman and Spacey acting classes for that purpose too. Also just pre-ordered and gifted the Deadmau5 Electronic Music Production one for my brother, for xmas.

3 hours ago, toxotis70 said:

yes, i use avid in my work too... but you have to import thew footage in Avid format... and that takes time, a lot of time! Its the same thing... you cant use with native footage.

And AMA is very slow...

 

 

I'm usually importing ProRes files so the Avid's "fast import" kicks in. Which doesn't take long since it's just rewrapping the files as MXF. Which takes the same amount of time as copying the media to the drive I'd be cutting from anyway. 

This is one advantage that I feel Avid has. Proxy mode is just a selection in a drop down menu. No extra media created, works instantly. When you're ready to export, just turn off proxy mode and export.

Yes, it does fit. I used it here with my Dog Schidt Optiks 88mm (which I normally use the bmpcc speedbooster with) to make a quasi-148mm. Have also tested with a Tokina 11-16, Sigma 18-35, and Sigma 50-100. no issues.

On 10/23/2016 at 3:05 AM, Swiss said:

I saw a video about the micro cinema camera where the guy says that the camera won't work with a metabones micro fourth third speedbooster. I have a micro fouth third speedbooster but not from metabones it's from China and it works on my bmpcc but i wonder if it would work on the micro cinema camera ? Anybody using one of those on the bmmcm ?

 

i've been using the metabones speedbooster on my micro since it was released. no issues.

I have the smart adapter, mainly to extend the range of useable focal lengths of my lenses. works fine on my bmmcc.

Ed was this the intended aspect ratio when you shot it? Or a decision someone else made in post? My gut tells me it's the latter. Maybe I'm wrong.

I usually build stuff like this in Photoshop. This is not a music video pitch but it follows a similar layout. It's the 2-page "sell sheet" I made that was used to pitch Down and Dangerous (my microbudget crime drama) to cable and satellite VOD providers across the US & Canada, as well as, Paramount Pictures for international distribution. Fortunately, we happened to have the type of movie they were looking for, but I'm sure this didn't hurt. Anyway... I find Photoshop makes this sort of thing pretty easy to create, and revise, and revise, and revise...

Micro body and features, but with the 2.5K sensor, would be my ideal right now.

Check this out. I just picked up a BMCC MFT 2.5K and put a spare BMPCC speedbooster on it. 1.39x crop.

Here is a FOV comparison between the BMPCC and BMCC. same pocket speed booster, same 28mm full frae lens. this set-up *does* require the use of full frame lenses by the way. aps-c will vignette.

Hey there. Everyone is going to have to make their own determination for how much moire they can handle. I'm pretty forgiving because i know most viewers aren't going to think twice about (or even notice) minor instances. But I bought the Mosaic anti-aliasing filter for those times when it goes berserk. Their new design only takes seconds to pop in and out. And lately, I find myself just leaving it in and giving the sharpening a nudge in Resolve. If I wasn't up to my ass in work, i'd do a side by side to show the benefits/sacrifices. But I'm happy wth how it cleans up moire that I'd often see in hair and other fine detail. I don't know if this will help, but it's the only thing I've got (that i can show) that I shot with the anti-aliasing filter from Mosaic. Shooting with vintage glass here too.

I think Dwayne Johnson is going to surprise people in the coming years. When he was first trying to breakout, we saw he was interested in being part of riskier, more art-house productions. And after struggling to be taken seriously (and trudging through the likes of The Tooth Fairy and Escape from Witch Mountain), I'd be willing to bet he's going to use the clout he has now to stretch and participate in some more thoughtful/compelling/cutting edge cinema. I doesn't hurt that he's a genuinely good person too, and deserves his success. I put he and Keanu Reeves in the same category: they've both built up so much goodwill in the industry and with their fans that (despite any perceived limit on their acting chops) that they are bulletproof to critics.

hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! never!!!!!!  

4 minutes ago, aldolega said:

Assuming it's shaky-cam style like the first, I can't think of many cameras worse than the A7s/A7sII. Jello city!

for a found footage horror movie, you might want to embrace the flaws.

it's the easiest thing in the world to be a critic, on the sideline, second-guessing someone with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. Ed took the initiative to do something. whether you agree with how he did it or not, the moralizing is a cheap shot. what solutions were his critics offering when he was getting his hands dirty behind the scenes? what action were they taking?

29 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

yes, but the odds were not just low.... but shockingly low!
Wish I could find that article again.

was it this one?

http://www.indiewire.com/2016/06/filmmakers-things-to-know-before-submitting-film-festival-independent-film-1201684197/