Raafi Rivero

No one has seen it in action so it is hard to say. However, on the surface it certainly seems like it could be. I foresee these modular type gimbal becoming the new trend. The Ronin S has a removable top section also. I would seem with some thought DJI could also make a slider module to add similar functionality. My biggest problem with the Edelkrone product centers around the many reports of issues from users. I welcome additional manufactures getting into this market as it will no doubt drive innovation and reliability.

An important factor for gimbals is not only the weight capacity but even more how they handle very front heavy and long setups. For example the new Weebill Lab. It's a great gimbal, great design, but it cannot stabilize a Sony A7III with the 24-70GM, neither the 24-105/F4, and most probably not even the 16-35GM. You might be able to balance such a setup, but the movements will be wobbling and unusable. According to the official specs regarding weight capacity, all the mentioned combinations should work, but in reality, they don't.
Of course you can use a light prime lens to avoid this issue, but for me personally, this is a dealbreaker for the Weebill Lab, unfortunately. If the Crane 3 or the Moza Air X solves this problem and provides a better experience than the Ronin S (which handles almost every possible setup), remains to be shown. 
I really love my Ronin S, but hate it the same time for the weight. Not because I can't carry it, but because it's so much harder for traveling. Any gimbal that is lighter and more compact, would be highly appreciated, if(!) it can handle those "light", but very front heavy mirrorless setups. 

I have this package. Didn’t buy it all from scratch, they kindly upgraded it from the previous generation for free. 
I’ve had little time with it, however I can say that it’s an incredibly innovative device and can accomplish shots you can’t do with anything else. 
No probs so far, will be happy to report more when I’ve had more experience. 
 

I guess if you don't count Amsterdam, Poland, Belgium, the Czech Republic, and Spain, then, yeah, there's only one distributor in Europe. I'd bet they add U.S. soon, too:
http://www.kinefinity.com/kineteam/contact-us/?lang=en

This is kind of a ridiculous statement. Not sure how you can make such a sweeping judgment not having shot on the camera.
re: S35 vs Full-Frame - one of the cool things about shooting on a full-frame camera like the Mavo LF is you can always bump down to S35 mode and shoot on a traditional frame size in 4k at any time. I did it the other day.
 

You have to win the Lotto to buy it, but here is one.
https://www.abelcine.com/buy/lenses-accessories/mattebox-components/bright-tangerine-misfit-mattebox-and-tiffen-138mm-variable-nd-promo-kit

You want the look of a heavier camera, you need to make the camera heavier. Period. The extra weight/mass is what makes bigger cameras look better handheld. Either you're willing to do it for the look or you're not. There's no way to "fake" inertia.
Gimbals and steadicams will give you steadier footage with a light camera and eliminate micro-jitter, but it's not the same aesthetic at all.
On a recent short, all it took was popping the F3 on a simple shoulder pad, and suddenly beautiful handheld was effortless. I can PM you a link if you're interested.

There is some confusion in the metaphor you're making about film stock and digital sensors. One the one hand you say that you want companies to produce custom made sensors, then you conclude by saying you purchased a Z-cam because it uses the same sensor as the GH4.
There are several layers to the way digital images are made and the sensor is just one of them. The color science of the camera matters as well - the Blackmagic CC4K and AJA Cion were released around the same time and were widely reported to use the same sensor. Both companies were known primarily for making breakout boxes and postproduction hardware. Both decided to move up the image chain to make a camera. The BMCC4K was Blackmagic's second camera. Blackmagic still makes cameras, and in fact the most popular thread on this website is about one of them. AJA produced an ergonomically superior camera. AJA released a video where the skin-tone of the models was not pleasing. AJA failed because of poor color science. So, you see, the sensor itself is not the dominant factor. Otherwise sensor makers would just make cameras.
Engineering meets aesthetics in a camera. The manufacturer must have an appreciation for both - in the build and design of the camera body itself, and in its appreciation for the types of images the camera will be used to produce. Kinefinity's engineering prowess is clear. No other large format camera delivers such specs in such a small package. The aesthetic question is, of course, more subjective. I believe the Mavo LF is capable of creating excellent, cinema-quality images.
 
 

This is kind of a ridiculous statement. Not sure how you can make such a sweeping judgment not having shot on the camera.
re: S35 vs Full-Frame - one of the cool things about shooting on a full-frame camera like the Mavo LF is you can always bump down to S35 mode and shoot on a traditional frame size in 4k at any time. I did it the other day.
 

There is some confusion in the metaphor you're making about film stock and digital sensors. One the one hand you say that you want companies to produce custom made sensors, then you conclude by saying you purchased a Z-cam because it uses the same sensor as the GH4.
There are several layers to the way digital images are made and the sensor is just one of them. The color science of the camera matters as well - the Blackmagic CC4K and AJA Cion were released around the same time and were widely reported to use the same sensor. Both companies were known primarily for making breakout boxes and postproduction hardware. Both decided to move up the image chain to make a camera. The BMCC4K was Blackmagic's second camera. Blackmagic still makes cameras, and in fact the most popular thread on this website is about one of them. AJA produced an ergonomically superior camera. AJA released a video where the skin-tone of the models was not pleasing. AJA failed because of poor color science. So, you see, the sensor itself is not the dominant factor. Otherwise sensor makers would just make cameras.
Engineering meets aesthetics in a camera. The manufacturer must have an appreciation for both - in the build and design of the camera body itself, and in its appreciation for the types of images the camera will be used to produce. Kinefinity's engineering prowess is clear. No other large format camera delivers such specs in such a small package. The aesthetic question is, of course, more subjective. I believe the Mavo LF is capable of creating excellent, cinema-quality images.
 
 

This is kind of a ridiculous statement. Not sure how you can make such a sweeping judgment not having shot on the camera.
re: S35 vs Full-Frame - one of the cool things about shooting on a full-frame camera like the Mavo LF is you can always bump down to S35 mode and shoot on a traditional frame size in 4k at any time. I did it the other day.
 

This is kind of a ridiculous statement. Not sure how you can make such a sweeping judgment not having shot on the camera.
re: S35 vs Full-Frame - one of the cool things about shooting on a full-frame camera like the Mavo LF is you can always bump down to S35 mode and shoot on a traditional frame size in 4k at any time. I did it the other day.
 

I kinda agree with you, and I kinda disagree with you. 

As we can look at the BMD vs Kinefinity life cycles for quite a lot further back than just the current generation of cameras. Because they've both been making cameras for a while now. 

And it does seem like a pattern of Kinefinity releasing a camera, then BMD leap frogging them with a product. 

However.... don't stop there, but play it forward another step. And you see Kinefinity bring out a product which then springs back and beats BMD.

And so on and so on this loop plays out. (with BMD/Kinefinity each releasing products)

Thus I'll not at all be surprised if in six months time BMD announces a new camera which looks like it might be able to match up against the Kinefinity Mavo LF but at a lower price? However then it takes another six more months before the BMD product ships and gets it major kinds ironed out. 

And what has happened during those twelve months?

Two things:

1) Mavo LF owners have had a whole year of working and shooting with the Mavo LF, earning money with it and pushing themselves further ahead creatively and professionally

2) Kinefinity has been keeping busy working on their next camera which they then announce, which is better than anything BMD has ever made

And so the cycle carries again and again into the future!
 

Another alternative way to look at it is like this:

Neither company is "better" than the other. 

Instead they've taken two different philosophies as to how to make a camera, and cater to two different market niches. 

Just like RED and ARRI have their points of difference. 

Kinefinity has taken a compact (smaller even than the smallest RED build) and power efficient (thus you can use BP-U30 batteries!) approach with a modular design (like RED). A very different philosophy to BMD's URSA series of cameras. 

I'll have an answer for you soon - I'm shooting the official launch film for it .
Here's my unboxing of the Mavo LF - the first one to land in the US - with a tiny bit of actual production footage at the end of the video. (sorry for the audio. I'm deep in pre-pro and was rushing to get the unboxing out while in the midst of other prep). 
 
This couldn't be further from the truth. At a base price of ~$12k it's a fraction of the cost of full-frame competitors - Monstro VV =$80,000, ALEXA LF = $98,000, Canon C700= $33,000, Sony Venice = $42,500. it's a dual-native ISO 800/5120, a feature none of the competitors offer (the Varicam has a similar dual native, but isn't full-frame). Also it's a fraction of the size/weight of all those other cameras. But, yeah, nothing special.
Been shooting tests all week, production starts on Saturday.
 
 

I'll have an answer for you soon - I'm shooting the official launch film for it .
Here's my unboxing of the Mavo LF - the first one to land in the US - with a tiny bit of actual production footage at the end of the video. (sorry for the audio. I'm deep in pre-pro and was rushing to get the unboxing out while in the midst of other prep). 
 
This couldn't be further from the truth. At a base price of ~$12k it's a fraction of the cost of full-frame competitors - Monstro VV =$80,000, ALEXA LF = $98,000, Canon C700= $33,000, Sony Venice = $42,500. it's a dual-native ISO 800/5120, a feature none of the competitors offer (the Varicam has a similar dual native, but isn't full-frame). Also it's a fraction of the size/weight of all those other cameras. But, yeah, nothing special.
Been shooting tests all week, production starts on Saturday.
 
 

No offense but I feel much better having not watched this.
 
 

A lot of the reason the bokeh look feels overdone is that it's cheaper to buy a fast lens and open it up on a night scene than light up a huge area and stop down. So with the flood of content from cheaper cameras and less-experienced filmmakers, we tend to see that look a lot.
Aesthetically speaking, though, the only thing that matters is how the story works, how a particular shot makes the audience feel in the telling of the story. 
The dreamy quality of bokeh can't be denied. Even Wes Anderson uses it from time to time:


 The other is a grab from my film where a tough-talking street dude is also surprisingly witty. The bokeh enhances the dreamy-turns-nightmarish quality of the scene as the lead character is has fallen asleep on the subway and wakes up in an unfamiliar neighborhood. But for other night scenes we pushed the ISO and stopped down to mitigate the effect.
 
The key is to have total control of the image as a storytelling tool. Bokeh is a part of image-making, so use it as it suits the content.

A lot of the reason the bokeh look feels overdone is that it's cheaper to buy a fast lens and open it up on a night scene than light up a huge area and stop down. So with the flood of content from cheaper cameras and less-experienced filmmakers, we tend to see that look a lot.
Aesthetically speaking, though, the only thing that matters is how the story works, how a particular shot makes the audience feel in the telling of the story. 
The dreamy quality of bokeh can't be denied. Even Wes Anderson uses it from time to time:


 The other is a grab from my film where a tough-talking street dude is also surprisingly witty. The bokeh enhances the dreamy-turns-nightmarish quality of the scene as the lead character is has fallen asleep on the subway and wakes up in an unfamiliar neighborhood. But for other night scenes we pushed the ISO and stopped down to mitigate the effect.
 
The key is to have total control of the image as a storytelling tool. Bokeh is a part of image-making, so use it as it suits the content.

A lot of the reason the bokeh look feels overdone is that it's cheaper to buy a fast lens and open it up on a night scene than light up a huge area and stop down. So with the flood of content from cheaper cameras and less-experienced filmmakers, we tend to see that look a lot.
Aesthetically speaking, though, the only thing that matters is how the story works, how a particular shot makes the audience feel in the telling of the story. 
The dreamy quality of bokeh can't be denied. Even Wes Anderson uses it from time to time:


 The other is a grab from my film where a tough-talking street dude is also surprisingly witty. The bokeh enhances the dreamy-turns-nightmarish quality of the scene as the lead character is has fallen asleep on the subway and wakes up in an unfamiliar neighborhood. But for other night scenes we pushed the ISO and stopped down to mitigate the effect.
 
The key is to have total control of the image as a storytelling tool. Bokeh is a part of image-making, so use it as it suits the content.

Yeah nothing is set in stone. It is hard to do something that has not been done before. But to me Bokeh that is overdone stands out like a sore thumb. Now that can be good or bad, depending on the circumstance if you want it to stand out, but doing it over and over in a short or film to me gets old. It gets predictable ,and that gets stale and boring, and well to me garish..
Now for a Photo sure I think that s OK because it is sort of a one off experience. But to see it overly used in video when it occupies hundreds, thousands of frames, nah. I am not saying don't use it. Sure if you have a fast lens you are using at night you are going t have Bokeh, probably big time. And that is fine. justdon't dwell on it.
Although I do remember some film where a guy was leaning against a wall at some restaurant staring into space at night, and all the backgrounds were OOF, and it was Bokeh hell, but it worked even though it was a long, motionless take. So that stuck in my mind forever I guess. So it worked, and worked well.

Eh, Bokeh is alright and good bokeh and separation are important "tools" for a cinematographer, much like any other visual styling. Being for or against distinctive bokeh is kind of moot. It's like going "yeah three-point-lighting is bad, you shouldn't use it because it's artificial". Cinematography doesn't always aim to reproduce reality in an accurate manner. I'd say it's more often the opposite. With pronounced bokeh, like with any tool, you just have to have some taste and brains. Sometimes it works for what you want to achieve, sometimes it doesn't.
Edit: I guess I should mention that the times I HAVE messed round with the bokeh in my work, be it with vintage lenses or with self-made bokeh modifiers, they've always garnered praise and astonishment from peers. You can do a lot by reshaping the out of focus areas of your image.

To me, shooting stills with manual focus is a pretty good way to practice, and you're only editing stills afterwards instead of video. You learn different framings and lenses and the muscle memory for focus pulling in unpredictable situations. Shooting doc-style stuff also helps. One way to practice is to reach out to friends or people who interest you and shoot a short profile piece. Something you can shoot in a day and edit in a weekend. Here's one such piece - an interview with a former bank robber that I did when I was researching and working on a feature script. I didn't have a sound person and borrowed a couple camera bodies and just operated all three cameras myself and did the interview.
But as they say, "the only way to get ten years experience is... to work for ten years."
 

Most festivals will ask you for a flat 1920x1080 file for projection so you should prep one of those with the black bars at the top and bottom. Some festivals are sophisticated enough to project in anamorphic but I wouldn't count on it, especially for a short where they're programming things in blocks. Most people will be submitting/projecting 1920x1080 so it's best to have a simple file that they can drop right into the timeline.
As far as which festivals to submit to, it's always a somewhat scattershot process but I'd take a look at what kinds of films they've programmed in the past as a guide. You wouldn't submit a drama to a comedy festival, etc. Each festival has a personality so you should target festivals that look like your film.
The other thing is travel - it's most valuable for your career to be able to actually be there for the screening so you can meet the programmers and festival people. I once won best short film at a festival that I wasn't even there for, so that was a missed opportunity. And that's why it's better to be there. So if you don't think you'd be able to make it to the screening (on your own dime) then that festival might be a lower priority than one where you can. Obvious exceptions are the top tier fests where you'd go regardless... but what difference does it make that your film played the Hawaii Children's Film Festival if you're not there? Ideally what happens is that you get into one or two top festivals and other festivals invite you to submit with a fee waiver - that way you can play Hawaii or wherever without having to pay to submit.
Often programmers from one festival will go to others nearby to scout films and filmmakers. And often programmers will move from one festival to another. So getting to know the people who work at the festival will help your reputation over time as those workers spread to other festivals, etc.
So, to recap, start applying to places you'd like to go, starting with the top dogs. Prioritize places you can get to on your own. As for festival gems, I had a great time at the Milwaukee Film Festival last October. Really well run, strong audience engagement. I wrote a long journal about the experience here. And I've had great fun at the Los Angeles Film Festival (top tier fest, great staff), Blackstar and Urbanworld, (niche festivals that fit my film), and New Orleans (incredible city, met a lot of filmmakers), etc. They're all fun. 
Keep plugging away and good luck.

Of course, plenty of worthy films don't make it into Sundance (ahem, mine), and plenty of people have success independent of what film festivals they play. And there are a good many people who've blown up after their work took off on Vimeo just as a good number have done the same through the festivals. Causation is almost impossible to prove in any of those cases so I'm not sure the point of bringing it up here. The film Pariah that I mentioned earlier was rejected the first time they applied to Sundance and it was only after premiering at Women in Film and Video and word-of-mouth building over several months that they were invited to the next Sundance, which (to me) is a great story of the perseverance that is necessary to go far in this world.
But since we're talking about film festivals, I guess the best part of what they do is create the context for the artistic side of the work. There are infinite numbers of channels broadcasting the latest reality tv competition shows and a lot of good filmmakers hone their craft working on them, etc. But those types of shows don't provide a platform for filmmakers who want to be making feature films and aren't quite there yet. Film festivals (the good ones, at least) do. They help both the audience and the creative workers, albeit through imperfect means. I spend a lot of time on Vimeo, have found a great many projects I love and have learned a ton from that platform, too. But one of Vimeo's limitations is that it's not designed to stoke the shared viewing experience that is one of the foundations of our industry. Film festivals do that, too. (again, the good ones). It's up to each of us to decide how we want our work to be seen and how to make sure we're making work that can reach it's audience. I think of film festivals as a critical piece of infrastructure in that process, just like Vimeo. For me a film is complete when it is seen by its audience, the better if that process can happen in a dark room with hundreds of people watching at the same time. Film festivals do that. The good ones.
 

out of likes
/thats important. context