Raafi Rivero

Outro outtake with the full IronFilm mention: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t58pz9ggu0oe5q8/ironfilm.m4v?dl=0

Outro outtake with the full IronFilm mention: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t58pz9ggu0oe5q8/ironfilm.m4v?dl=0

Here's my full review. I also wrote a more detailed post at No Film School.

Very nice. I love your delivery as well.

Here's my full review. I also wrote a more detailed post at No Film School.

@IronFilm I'll send you the outtake where I say I'm working on doing better audio because of you  

Here's my full review. I also wrote a more detailed post at No Film School.

Had a go with the 3.5K:

You basically have to shoot blind, and hitting focus is up to the camera gods...
The only thing about using Resolve over ACR is there's no "remove chromatic aberration" button and you can see it would have been useful for this.

Well, cost is a great reason to buy any comparable over any other more expensive thing. C200 wins on internal ND and autofocus.
But here are the other reasons to get the Terra 4k over the C200 (besides the already stated ones of SSD, lens mounts, speedbooster, etc.):
75 vs 60 max fps at full sensor readout extra stop of dynamic range 14 vs 13 (manufacturer claims, both) internal ProRes smaller lighter but, yeah, no reason at all to consider it.

I actually woke up this morning wondering if there are other areas of film production that can be completely re-thought (and improved!) the way that FCPX improved the concept of the timeline. It is a very different way of thinking about laying out shots. But because it is so unmoored from legacy systems and thinking, I feel that much more free to experiment with ideas. It took awhile to learn, and all of my processes are not fully integrated with the software. But cutting and iterating through concepts is so much faster that I wish I could work with it for every project.

IMO, FCPX is the best NLE out there for what I do. Ive been working professionally with Premiere and Avid for many years now and Im seriously starting to hate them. So fiddely and flat out dumb. And of course slow.
Switching to FCPX is still the biggest leap forward in editing for me. But I remember the initial frustration. It all went away when I decided to learn IT instead of teaching it my way of working.
And I have always been able to use LUTs in Final Cut. 
A funny note. This is the reason why I was the first guy to really try the XC-10 and LS300. True story.
Ever since my epiphany in FXPX I started applying it to other stuff. When I see a product get super bashed by people based on specs or quick reviews my new way of thinking is:
"That cant be. No way did a big company do all this research and spend money but some how didn't know it would be like this. Its more likely the users that are trying to force their ways and preferences onto the product instead of learning it and how it was intended to be used."
So I tried the XC10, LS300, Leica T, Sigma cameras, etc. Had alot of fun with all of them. And now Canons new compact and the Leica CL looks very promising. 
A general rule for me is hate = interest
(And anything the camera store says is the worst probably rocks. Their negative to positive ratio is unmatched.)
BTW I also did a speed test once.
 

I use a mix of http://freemusicarchive.org and you can search SoundCloud with a checkbox for CC-licensed music. They kind of hide the option for CreativeCommons a couple clicks down, after you've actually searched for something. But it's good for searching genres or for a specific instrument. my recipe for SoundCloud on the attached image.

I use a mix of http://freemusicarchive.org and you can search SoundCloud with a checkbox for CC-licensed music. They kind of hide the option for CreativeCommons a couple clicks down, after you've actually searched for something. But it's good for searching genres or for a specific instrument. my recipe for SoundCloud on the attached image.

At the same time, some of the most brilliant movies are considered great because they appeal to everyone at many levels of intelligence. Think of The Godfather, for instance. Cinematography nerds can love Gordon Willis' innovation of using darkness and top-lighting to establish mood in a way that was scary to Hollywood at the time. Writing and story buffs can enjoy every morsel of how Puzo and Coppola adapted the novel to screenplay form. The production design. How many times has Pacino's performance in parts one and two been called "brilliant"? I enjoyed the movie as a kid, as a teen, and now in my middle age just as much, but for different reasons. There are great popcorn moments in The Godfather just as there are deeper things you can think about for a lifetime - what does being an honorable son mean, for instance, or how does capitalism and loyalty corrupt one's ideals?
In the same way that using a lot of big words might make you sound smart but won't necessarily mean that you're a great communicator, I think the ultimate brilliance and intellectual challenge of making a film is how to talk about big ideas to a mass audience. Films like The Godfather do that. There may be audiences (albeit smaller ones) for stories that don't try, don't "pander", to people with low intelligence, and that's fine. But let's not confuse being intellectual with quality filmmaking.
The flip side of the coin, of course, is the lowest common denominator. The films that do well precisely because they do pander to the audience but don't stand the test of time due to their lack of depth and intellectual rigor. Think of films like Dances With Wolves, which won best picture the same year that Goodfellas came out. Most film buffs, even the dumb ones, have watched and talked about Goodfellas many times in the intervening 25+ years, but time has not been so kind to the other.
The studio system, and many such systems guided by groupthink and large investment dollars will often ferret out the most original ideas in favor of safe ones. Which is why we have so many sequels. But the alternative of making pedantic movies for no audience is just as dire for the audience.

At the same time, some of the most brilliant movies are considered great because they appeal to everyone at many levels of intelligence. Think of The Godfather, for instance. Cinematography nerds can love Gordon Willis' innovation of using darkness and top-lighting to establish mood in a way that was scary to Hollywood at the time. Writing and story buffs can enjoy every morsel of how Puzo and Coppola adapted the novel to screenplay form. The production design. How many times has Pacino's performance in parts one and two been called "brilliant"? I enjoyed the movie as a kid, as a teen, and now in my middle age just as much, but for different reasons. There are great popcorn moments in The Godfather just as there are deeper things you can think about for a lifetime - what does being an honorable son mean, for instance, or how does capitalism and loyalty corrupt one's ideals?
In the same way that using a lot of big words might make you sound smart but won't necessarily mean that you're a great communicator, I think the ultimate brilliance and intellectual challenge of making a film is how to talk about big ideas to a mass audience. Films like The Godfather do that. There may be audiences (albeit smaller ones) for stories that don't try, don't "pander", to people with low intelligence, and that's fine. But let's not confuse being intellectual with quality filmmaking.
The flip side of the coin, of course, is the lowest common denominator. The films that do well precisely because they do pander to the audience but don't stand the test of time due to their lack of depth and intellectual rigor. Think of films like Dances With Wolves, which won best picture the same year that Goodfellas came out. Most film buffs, even the dumb ones, have watched and talked about Goodfellas many times in the intervening 25+ years, but time has not been so kind to the other.
The studio system, and many such systems guided by groupthink and large investment dollars will often ferret out the most original ideas in favor of safe ones. Which is why we have so many sequels. But the alternative of making pedantic movies for no audience is just as dire for the audience.

At the same time, some of the most brilliant movies are considered great because they appeal to everyone at many levels of intelligence. Think of The Godfather, for instance. Cinematography nerds can love Gordon Willis' innovation of using darkness and top-lighting to establish mood in a way that was scary to Hollywood at the time. Writing and story buffs can enjoy every morsel of how Puzo and Coppola adapted the novel to screenplay form. The production design. How many times has Pacino's performance in parts one and two been called "brilliant"? I enjoyed the movie as a kid, as a teen, and now in my middle age just as much, but for different reasons. There are great popcorn moments in The Godfather just as there are deeper things you can think about for a lifetime - what does being an honorable son mean, for instance, or how does capitalism and loyalty corrupt one's ideals?
In the same way that using a lot of big words might make you sound smart but won't necessarily mean that you're a great communicator, I think the ultimate brilliance and intellectual challenge of making a film is how to talk about big ideas to a mass audience. Films like The Godfather do that. There may be audiences (albeit smaller ones) for stories that don't try, don't "pander", to people with low intelligence, and that's fine. But let's not confuse being intellectual with quality filmmaking.
The flip side of the coin, of course, is the lowest common denominator. The films that do well precisely because they do pander to the audience but don't stand the test of time due to their lack of depth and intellectual rigor. Think of films like Dances With Wolves, which won best picture the same year that Goodfellas came out. Most film buffs, even the dumb ones, have watched and talked about Goodfellas many times in the intervening 25+ years, but time has not been so kind to the other.
The studio system, and many such systems guided by groupthink and large investment dollars will often ferret out the most original ideas in favor of safe ones. Which is why we have so many sequels. But the alternative of making pedantic movies for no audience is just as dire for the audience.

At the same time, some of the most brilliant movies are considered great because they appeal to everyone at many levels of intelligence. Think of The Godfather, for instance. Cinematography nerds can love Gordon Willis' innovation of using darkness and top-lighting to establish mood in a way that was scary to Hollywood at the time. Writing and story buffs can enjoy every morsel of how Puzo and Coppola adapted the novel to screenplay form. The production design. How many times has Pacino's performance in parts one and two been called "brilliant"? I enjoyed the movie as a kid, as a teen, and now in my middle age just as much, but for different reasons. There are great popcorn moments in The Godfather just as there are deeper things you can think about for a lifetime - what does being an honorable son mean, for instance, or how does capitalism and loyalty corrupt one's ideals?
In the same way that using a lot of big words might make you sound smart but won't necessarily mean that you're a great communicator, I think the ultimate brilliance and intellectual challenge of making a film is how to talk about big ideas to a mass audience. Films like The Godfather do that. There may be audiences (albeit smaller ones) for stories that don't try, don't "pander", to people with low intelligence, and that's fine. But let's not confuse being intellectual with quality filmmaking.
The flip side of the coin, of course, is the lowest common denominator. The films that do well precisely because they do pander to the audience but don't stand the test of time due to their lack of depth and intellectual rigor. Think of films like Dances With Wolves, which won best picture the same year that Goodfellas came out. Most film buffs, even the dumb ones, have watched and talked about Goodfellas many times in the intervening 25+ years, but time has not been so kind to the other.
The studio system, and many such systems guided by groupthink and large investment dollars will often ferret out the most original ideas in favor of safe ones. Which is why we have so many sequels. But the alternative of making pedantic movies for no audience is just as dire for the audience.

I can’t speak for Philip Bloom’s personal and professional ethics. I don’t know the man. He seems fairly honest with his reviews.
I do know he received the camera about a month ago. And although I don’t know the details of his upcoming appearance at this trade show, I’d prefer to assume the best than the worst.
And at this point there’s no indication to assume otherwise. Just my opinion. 

Well, cost is a great reason to buy any comparable over any other more expensive thing. C200 wins on internal ND and autofocus.
But here are the other reasons to get the Terra 4k over the C200 (besides the already stated ones of SSD, lens mounts, speedbooster, etc.):
75 vs 60 max fps at full sensor readout extra stop of dynamic range 14 vs 13 (manufacturer claims, both) internal ProRes smaller lighter but, yeah, no reason at all to consider it.

Well, cost is a great reason to buy any comparable over any other more expensive thing. C200 wins on internal ND and autofocus.
But here are the other reasons to get the Terra 4k over the C200 (besides the already stated ones of SSD, lens mounts, speedbooster, etc.):
75 vs 60 max fps at full sensor readout extra stop of dynamic range 14 vs 13 (manufacturer claims, both) internal ProRes smaller lighter but, yeah, no reason at all to consider it.

Kinefinity and BlackMagic are doing the same thing RED did for the industry a generation ago - putting cinema-capable tools in the hands of filmmakers at a fraction of the mainstream industry's price structure. Would Panasonic, Sony, or Canon be offering Raw recording in their sub-$10k cameras without those two brands pushing the envelope? Heck, would Red have even released the Scarlet package without the downward price pressure of those two brands? The big players have had the technology for years. Protecting the higher-priced models explains the strangely handicapped C200 - you can have massive Raw files or an 8-bit codec (?!? what? ) but if you want a decent codec and Raw you still have to pay for the next tier up. Are Kinefinity or BM perfect, no? But BlackMagic made a much better camera than AJA, while using the same sensor as the aforementioned AJA Cion. The difference? Both BlackMagic and Kine have excellent color science. As evidenced by the Cion, color science is not an insignificant part of making a camera.

Agreed... [Jim Jannard storms off into the sunset] Art Adams is a great resource. Not as in love with his work as a DP, but he somehow manages to make camera criticism useful to both readers and the manufacturers themselves.

I love Casey and I think he is a story telling genius. I had no idea about his background for love of movies. This makes sense why he is such a good story teller. 
This is one best things I've seen in the past month. Thanks for sharing! 

Thought I'd post this here for the curious who are not part of the Kine FB group.
The only adjustment made to the footage is applying an Arri rec.709 LUT.
Shot with Tamron 24-70 f/2.8.
f/2.8 - 4.0
ISO: 800
25 and 75 fps
4300K
Downscaled to 2K and exported in 422.
 
 

Pretty sure I'm the first person outside of China who has the new Kinefinity TERRA 4k. I've been a bit of a ghost on this forum since going all-in on the Kine pre-order, but here's an unboxing video by way of saying hello again: