Jump to content

austinchimp

Members
  • Posts

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    austinchimp reacted to Mattias Burling in Why film?   
    As a young journalist/producer I almost immediately after school drifted into Radio- and TV-production of entertainment, sports or news.
    I was a decent writer but didn't have the patience. Im more of an creative director that don't want to spend time doing stuff that I can tell/hire someone else to do. I want full control over projects
    Any aspirations of fiction and "movies" I had started to fade since I preferred a faster and more "real" medium.
    Within a few years I had drifted more and stopped making short films all together.

    My personal video work became documentary and my work left the journalistic side and went into communication, public relations and advertising in a governmental agency.
    Currently switching jobs again after almost eight years to work public relations, communication and marketing for one single company in the private sector (its a huge company). There I will get to spend enough time making videos that I don't think I will keep it up as a hobby much longer. Other than some youtube and family stuff.

    But during this whole time my interest for still photography has really grown.
    Now its almost all I think about.
    I think the reason is the challenge. To take a situation that you would normally capture with 3-5min of video, audio, grading, angles, movement, slow-motion, effects, music, dialog, and so on.
    To capture all that in one single frame.
    Click!

    I see photographers telling the longest and most engaging stories, really moving me, with just one frame.

    I still see myself as just a beginner in still photography after some 20 years, 3 of which Ive taken it more seriously. I don't think most of my images tell much of a story at all. And thats why I like it. There is so much to explore and learn. I guess Ive found the ultimate medium for my type of person who wants a quick fix but still have endless possibilities. 
     
  2. Like
    austinchimp reacted to Fritz Pierre in GH5 focus excellence   
    All the attention on AF makes me wonder if this does not have something to do with the 24P revolution on the DVX100 and boom..."film look" and then DSLR's and M4/3's and real affordability for everyone achieving an image not that far off from S35 mm film cameras and suddenly everyone's a DP....overnight!....except they're not!...it took years of learning to change and clean lenses...switching magazines and checking gates after changing over each film mag...pulling focus, and then operating....and only a select few went on to become DOP's in a fairly large industry...but everyone went through the process of LEARNING how to work properly with the various aspects of the tasks the 4 to 5 people it took to just operate that camera had to be familiar with!...and now we are suddenly in point and shoot mode...and image be damned...if the  DP ( tongue in cheek here!!!)...can't just point his camera at the desired subject and singlehandedly pull of Scorsese's several minute take in Goodfellas...well WTF Panasonic!!...what were your engineers thinking...clearly they were not thinking about the most important aspect to many about this camera which is AF!...the good news of course is for a few hundred $s the camera you want is out there... you can by an older Canon DSLR that will AF seamlessly and get down to the business of making your own dream projects...so all is not lost after all!!!
  3. Like
    austinchimp reacted to deezid in Anyone not that excited about the GH5?   
    It's basically adding lots of saturation, then contrast using curves (find a proper black value using the waveform!), shifting the hues (bright green a bit to yellow, yellow a bit to orange, orange slightly to red, red a bit to magenta), desaturating shadows and highlights, desaturating bright oranges (helps for skintones as well), pushing gray or low saturation mid and dark tones (not black though, leave dark skin color the way it is!) to teal a bit, adding a bit of grain.

    That's it basically. :D 
  4. Like
    austinchimp reacted to Kubrickian in Anyone not that excited about the GH5?   
    Andrew is in the throes of New Camera Mania (™) and it won't wear off for the GH5 until a new "pretty good" prosumer camera is released that has a lot of shortcomings but produces a decent image. 
  5. Like
    austinchimp reacted to Davey in Panasonic GH5 starts shipping in 3 days. How's the 180fps slow-mo quality?   
    There is always going to be an improved camera further down the pike. If you ask me, Panasonic have come out with yet more wife material but that won't stop Sony unleashing a strumpet that will seduce many. It won't be as reliable as the GH5 but will definitely turn heads and get people salivating.
     
  6. Like
    austinchimp reacted to rdouthit in Replaced A7S with A99II for TV Shoot   
    The A99II every time. For me, the lack of an EVF makes the 1DXII a non-starter. The touch-focus is really, really good, however, and that overcomes a lot. But it's just not my style of shooting. Also, those files sizes are a bit ridiculous on the Canon.
  7. Like
    austinchimp got a reaction from Flynn in What makes an image cinematic?   
    Interesting topic that comes around time and time again. I think it's one of those eternal questions that has no real answer but here is my take.
    Yes you can produce amazing work on a GH2 or an iPhone but there's a reason professionals use professional cameras. I shoot most days largely as a one man band shooting events, sports and interviews and when you use a tool every day you really get to know it's shortcomings and it's the same when you're shooting dramatic work. The point of a more Pro camera like an Alexa, or an Ursa mini, and a BMPCC certainly has more in common with these cameras than with a GH2, is not that it's a magic fix that gives you instantly cinematic results, although in some cases that is true. The point is that it won't let you down if you use it right, and it gives you far more options in post later.
    Unless you're a world class cinematographer you will likely screw something up on set from time to time, exposure or colour balance are particular issues. And a camera like tweet BMPCC will give you a far better chance of fixing or hiding the error, which leads to a better result, which leads to a more 'cinematic' result. I believe that cinematic can often just mean professional. If your work looks like the work of a pro, you're more likely to provoke suspension of disbelief and that's the point at which an audience stops caring about the image and starts getting invested in your story.
    But a GH2 or iPhone or Canon Rebel create all kinds of issues that you might not be able to handle on set or in post, thereby leading to an image which looks compromised or amateurish, and thereby reduces the audience's trust in you. An Alexa is so expensive because it largely gets out of the way and allows you to work with complete trust that the tool is gathering all the correct information, while you can get on with directing and shooting.
    In summary, you can get great results with cheap DSLR style cameras, but it takes a lot of work and fiddling and mental energy, while raw and 10 bit log may not make your film great but will make it a hell of a lot easier to achieve greatness.
    Take from that what you will.
     
  8. Like
    austinchimp got a reaction from Juxx989 in What makes an image cinematic?   
    Interesting topic that comes around time and time again. I think it's one of those eternal questions that has no real answer but here is my take.
    Yes you can produce amazing work on a GH2 or an iPhone but there's a reason professionals use professional cameras. I shoot most days largely as a one man band shooting events, sports and interviews and when you use a tool every day you really get to know it's shortcomings and it's the same when you're shooting dramatic work. The point of a more Pro camera like an Alexa, or an Ursa mini, and a BMPCC certainly has more in common with these cameras than with a GH2, is not that it's a magic fix that gives you instantly cinematic results, although in some cases that is true. The point is that it won't let you down if you use it right, and it gives you far more options in post later.
    Unless you're a world class cinematographer you will likely screw something up on set from time to time, exposure or colour balance are particular issues. And a camera like tweet BMPCC will give you a far better chance of fixing or hiding the error, which leads to a better result, which leads to a more 'cinematic' result. I believe that cinematic can often just mean professional. If your work looks like the work of a pro, you're more likely to provoke suspension of disbelief and that's the point at which an audience stops caring about the image and starts getting invested in your story.
    But a GH2 or iPhone or Canon Rebel create all kinds of issues that you might not be able to handle on set or in post, thereby leading to an image which looks compromised or amateurish, and thereby reduces the audience's trust in you. An Alexa is so expensive because it largely gets out of the way and allows you to work with complete trust that the tool is gathering all the correct information, while you can get on with directing and shooting.
    In summary, you can get great results with cheap DSLR style cameras, but it takes a lot of work and fiddling and mental energy, while raw and 10 bit log may not make your film great but will make it a hell of a lot easier to achieve greatness.
    Take from that what you will.
     
  9. Like
    austinchimp got a reaction from Chrad in What makes an image cinematic?   
    Interesting topic that comes around time and time again. I think it's one of those eternal questions that has no real answer but here is my take.
    Yes you can produce amazing work on a GH2 or an iPhone but there's a reason professionals use professional cameras. I shoot most days largely as a one man band shooting events, sports and interviews and when you use a tool every day you really get to know it's shortcomings and it's the same when you're shooting dramatic work. The point of a more Pro camera like an Alexa, or an Ursa mini, and a BMPCC certainly has more in common with these cameras than with a GH2, is not that it's a magic fix that gives you instantly cinematic results, although in some cases that is true. The point is that it won't let you down if you use it right, and it gives you far more options in post later.
    Unless you're a world class cinematographer you will likely screw something up on set from time to time, exposure or colour balance are particular issues. And a camera like tweet BMPCC will give you a far better chance of fixing or hiding the error, which leads to a better result, which leads to a more 'cinematic' result. I believe that cinematic can often just mean professional. If your work looks like the work of a pro, you're more likely to provoke suspension of disbelief and that's the point at which an audience stops caring about the image and starts getting invested in your story.
    But a GH2 or iPhone or Canon Rebel create all kinds of issues that you might not be able to handle on set or in post, thereby leading to an image which looks compromised or amateurish, and thereby reduces the audience's trust in you. An Alexa is so expensive because it largely gets out of the way and allows you to work with complete trust that the tool is gathering all the correct information, while you can get on with directing and shooting.
    In summary, you can get great results with cheap DSLR style cameras, but it takes a lot of work and fiddling and mental energy, while raw and 10 bit log may not make your film great but will make it a hell of a lot easier to achieve greatness.
    Take from that what you will.
     
  10. Like
    austinchimp reacted to Jonathan Warner in EOSHD C-LOG   
    I wondered what others thought of combining EOS-HD C-Log with Highlight Tone Priority (D+) on the 1DX Mark ii?
    I have been testing it in very low light (with highlights in the scene) and the Highlight Tone Priority (D+) recovers a considerable amount in the highlights, that are overexposed with the D+ turned off.  There is a little more noise in the shadows, but not a huge amount.
  11. Like
    austinchimp reacted to voyagervideo in EOSHD C-LOG   
    I gotta say, I'm not sure if it's the Log emulation or Andrew's LUTs (probably the latter) but it really looks like the net effect here is converting Canon color to something that looks more Sony-ish: low-contrast & desaturated (because you can't make the 8-bit flat colors 'pop', and odd brick-color skintones (def the lut). 
  12. Like
    austinchimp reacted to emerrow in EOSHD Pro Color for Sony Cameras   
    I filmed this video with the a7s (original) with the EOSHD V2 a6500 color settings.
     
  13. Like
    austinchimp reacted to fuzzynormal in Please critique me...a lot!   
    I would hope you're aware that the reasons why your video isn't good has almost nothing to do with the camera or the settings. 
    Based on your OP, I'm not sure you're the type of person that understands that. 
    Is that honest enough for you?
    Basically, you have no shooting or editing chops. Luckily, learning how to have a foundation of shooting and editing skills is easy. 
    Who the hell cares about skin tone, color, or slightly underexposed footage when there's no watchable content to begin with?
    Would you rather hear a novice play "chopsticks" on a Stienway grand piano or hear Franz Liszt do something with a Casio?
    First, don't give a damn about the nuances of what your camera can do. Put it on one setting and forget about it. You need to concentrate on composition and montage shooting. 
    Heres the shortcut to learn how to do that:
    Basically, find a video of the exact same subject matter that you like. 
    Now, watch it shot by shot. 
    Storyboard what you see on a bunch of paper.
    Take these pieces of paper to your next shoot.
    Get the shots you've drawn on those pages. Think about what the original shooter had to do to get the shots in the first place.  Where he had to be, why he got low, or high, or close to capture those shots.  Try to think like he did.  Emulate that.
    Once you've captured all the shots on the paper, start over and shoot all the shots again.  
    Once you've captured all the shots on the paper, start over and shoot all the shots yet again. 
    Okay.
    Now go into your editor. 
    Lay down the example video you liked on your timeline.
    Put your "copy" shots right above the shots from that video.
    There you go.
    After you do that (and probably fail at it) you might start to see what's actually required to craft a watchable video.
    Learn.  Enjoy the process of shooting interesting frames and building an edit.
    Once you know that, start worrying about the other stuff. 
    Cameras are just a damn tool.  It's like a hammer. If you're not skilled enough to drive a nail, it doesn't matter a bit what kind of hammer  you're using.
     
  14. Like
    austinchimp reacted to kaylee in Let me share this music video shot on Micro Cinema Camera   
    i goggled "music video" and this came up. director is some guy named paul thomas anderson. doesnt seem to match your formula. first time director maybe? clearly not a "pro"
     
  15. Like
    austinchimp reacted to jgharding in James Miller deLUTS are awesome   
    I find massively pushed-up black levels irritating! They work when there's a big light source in frame as then it's contextually relevant, but otherwise they're a sort of Instagram affectation...
    the colour palettes is nice though
  16. Like
    austinchimp reacted to richg101 in Insane run and gun - A7r II   
    bit harsh don;t you think?
    I don't know.  From the looks of it, they spent quite a few hours driving around the streets taking an awful lot of effort at night risking arrest and personal injury, for an artistic/political cause.  I expect at the time the shooter was under a lot of pressure to get the shots while keeping a look out for authorities. At least he's made a finished piece!  
     
    I personally enjoyed the film.  looks nice.  well edited. serves the purpose.
  17. Like
    austinchimp reacted to Shield3 in a7r ii nothing but headaches.   
    "A7r ii nothing but headaches".  Hasn't been for me.  I'm sure I am clearly in the minority here not hopping on the anti-Sony bandwagon, but having owned the a7r / a7s I find the colors of the a7r mark ii noticeably improved over the first series a7's.  Are they as pleasing as the 1dc or the 5d3 raw?  Of course not - just different.  I don't shoot Slog-2 often and leave the picture profiles completely off, and I make sure I manually set my WB first every time.  I'm loving this little camera, and in s35 mode + the Metabones speedbooster I'm getting great footage with it and my Canon glass.  I shot the 85 1.2 II handheld the other day and was amazed by how steady the shot was.
    Shrug.  There is no perfect camera yet.  I think the UHD downscaled to 1080p from the a7r2 looks stunning, and I shoot people and landscapes mostly.
  18. Like
    austinchimp got a reaction from Volker Schmidt in Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?   
    I don't have my 1DC anymore - I moved to a A7Rii for the weight, convenience and video features. But the other day I was working with some of my old 1DC footage and wow - there's so much information in the codec. It feels real, tangible.
    For me the codec is the key. It has such an influence over the feel of an image, it's robustness and 'crunchiness'. I feel like Sony's codecs smooth out the image somehow, making it technically great but somehow lacking a bit of soul. It feels like it's been denoised, with some of the reality taken out of it somehow.
    On the upside though the A7Rii colour is much improved from my A7s, and it's great for the one-man-band corporate work I do. I do like the image. I just don't LOVE it.
  19. Like
    austinchimp got a reaction from kaylee in Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?   
    I don't have my 1DC anymore - I moved to a A7Rii for the weight, convenience and video features. But the other day I was working with some of my old 1DC footage and wow - there's so much information in the codec. It feels real, tangible.
    For me the codec is the key. It has such an influence over the feel of an image, it's robustness and 'crunchiness'. I feel like Sony's codecs smooth out the image somehow, making it technically great but somehow lacking a bit of soul. It feels like it's been denoised, with some of the reality taken out of it somehow.
    On the upside though the A7Rii colour is much improved from my A7s, and it's great for the one-man-band corporate work I do. I do like the image. I just don't LOVE it.
  20. Like
    austinchimp got a reaction from Oliver Daniel in Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?   
    I don't have my 1DC anymore - I moved to a A7Rii for the weight, convenience and video features. But the other day I was working with some of my old 1DC footage and wow - there's so much information in the codec. It feels real, tangible.
    For me the codec is the key. It has such an influence over the feel of an image, it's robustness and 'crunchiness'. I feel like Sony's codecs smooth out the image somehow, making it technically great but somehow lacking a bit of soul. It feels like it's been denoised, with some of the reality taken out of it somehow.
    On the upside though the A7Rii colour is much improved from my A7s, and it's great for the one-man-band corporate work I do. I do like the image. I just don't LOVE it.
  21. Like
    austinchimp got a reaction from Cinegain in Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?   
    I don't have my 1DC anymore - I moved to a A7Rii for the weight, convenience and video features. But the other day I was working with some of my old 1DC footage and wow - there's so much information in the codec. It feels real, tangible.
    For me the codec is the key. It has such an influence over the feel of an image, it's robustness and 'crunchiness'. I feel like Sony's codecs smooth out the image somehow, making it technically great but somehow lacking a bit of soul. It feels like it's been denoised, with some of the reality taken out of it somehow.
    On the upside though the A7Rii colour is much improved from my A7s, and it's great for the one-man-band corporate work I do. I do like the image. I just don't LOVE it.
  22. Like
    austinchimp reacted to Axel in Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?   
    I agree with everything stated above. Let me just elaborate on an aspect apparent in any Micro/Pocket-clip and particularly in the Training Day clip: sensor size vs. focus vs. aspect ratio. I think the cinematographer did a good job, considering it was handheld and focussed manually, but ...
    For 16x9 (or 17:9, cinema widescreen), S35 (or APS-C, let's not split hairs here) seems (to me) to be the ideal sensor size. Yes, I know, a lot of factors contribute to sDoF, bokeh (aperture with or without the need to compensate for light conditions, pixel size with circle of confusion, sensor dimensions), but generally S16 is an unfortunate choice. Like full frame in the other extreme. Full frame is best for 3:2 photography. When I look at my old Praktika 6x6 stills, how creamy everything flows into focus (but still is soft, you need good resolution for that), it looks threedimensional instantly, very sweet. For scope, however, there is little good in anything else but absolute DoF (exceptions prove the rule). Framing has to do with how the motif is accentuated and therefore it influences focussing.
    I totally dislike the artificial look of Sony cameras. Even without prominent artifacts or something I could nail down, the image looks processed. The Micro would have been the answer to everything, had it only a bigger sensor.
     
  23. Like
    austinchimp reacted to DPStewart in Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?   
    Remember folks that LENS choice has a HUGE impact.
    The 4k cameras can very easily suffer from TOO sharp an image. That's one reason the NX1 usually dosn't look nearly as smooth as the 1DC or the BMPCC. The Samsung lenses can be extremely sharp. 

    Motion cadence is unique to each camera maker usually.
    Some folks can see the difference, others can't.
    If you ask enough people, the Blackmagic Cinema and Pocket cameras frequently rank very high, as do the Canons if they are shooting an all I-Frame codec

    Having seen many test comparisons done, I can tell you this - you'd be shocked by how similar many cameras can look when you put the exact same lens on them and shoot the exact same scene.
  24. Like
    austinchimp reacted to Cinegain in Why do I like the look of the Canon 1D C and Blackmagic Micro Cinema so much than the Ursa, F55, FS7, and C300 mark ii?   
    Yeah, somehow the 1D C has got it down and got it down good. It might not compete well in the numbers game (well, maybe launch price, ey), but delivers you something that, and I hate myself for saying this, because it's stupid, just looks filmic. It's less robot... less clinical, less emotionless, less efficient, yet sooo efficient... it's more like a living creature that breathes, has soft skin, with some freckles perhaps and when you look the creature into its eyes, it's not pitch dark and empty, but there's something expressive, a spark, a flame. There's emotion. Confidence, richness. I don't like the camera one bit. I'm really all about mirrorless and practical things, lots of digital aids, love specwars and getting the latest and greatest. But I just have to admit... there's something about that 1D C... the footage I've seen that comes out of this is hard to touch and it makes it look so effortless. Maybe everything else there is just trying too hard...
  25. Like
    austinchimp reacted to tomsemiterrific in Meeting with Sony to discuss FS5 cinema camera improvements - optimised firmware available Friday 7am London time   
    You may be on to something, but in some degree I think it may be a red herring. I have noted discrepancies in WB from cam to cam in the Sony line. I owned an FS100 and EA50, and white balancing them gave significantly different readings. But the issue is more than colour (as in skin colour)--it's skin tone. I don't have the technical lingo to describe it in precise terms.
    I use Color Finale to do most of my colour correction. The vector tool feature in Color Finale isolates colours, enabling you to do fine adjustments of the six colours on the wheel. And no matter how I toggle between yellow and red I can't make the Sony's achieve the tone and colour in skin tone that comes virtually out of the camera on the Canon.  
    I also note the X-rite Color checker goes haywire on the Sony cams, and doesn't work dependably. On the Canon it works like a champ.
    Equally as frustrating to me is how Sony, Canon, and most all the manufacturers provide the scantiest information on how to best use the features they provide to get the best results. This means countless hours of individuals trying to figure it out for themselves. Such time can't be avoided altogether, but surely it could be minimized with the proper information. But, this subject really is another post, isn't it?
×
×
  • Create New...