Raafi Rivero

Media100?

FWIW, the basic technique of match-cutting has certainly been part of the craft from the earliest days of montage editing.  Now, since the tempo of modern editing is so frantic and kinetic I'd call this evolution of the style "hyper-match-cut" as it's over and above even the fast paced stuff we're used to in more "standard" edits.
Also, the craft to aggressively accentuate the blend of movement is obviously such a huge priority it becomes the prominent aesthetic and the entire justification of the video.
Cool, to be sure.  Enjoyable in short doses as it's style above substance and fun to look at.  Perfect for impressionistic travel films.  
How well does it work for fictional narrative though?  I suppose it depends.  
Alright, so this is going to be a bit of a tangent, but I must say since this thread has me thinking about it, after watching "Jason Bourne" last night, I felt that the fast cut style was pushed beyond my tolerance.  Your mileage may differ, but for me it became unnecessary distraction rather than an effective technique.  
However, it was interesting to note how incredibly short the editor/director was willing to make a shot and still attempt to maintain narrative cohesion.  The answer, as much as I could tell, was about a 4th of a second.  For me, it was like this:  visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a knife falling to the ground, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, he landed a punch there, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a gun, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, his wound is a liability, etc., etc.  --And all that happens in about 2 seconds.  
I'm actually not being dismissively critical of the "mess" part, (flying elbows, CU's of motion blurred faces) because I realize it's designed (or tolerated?) to be a sort of impressionistic din and then the incredibly short but important visual clues let the viewer connect to the unfolding sequence. I'm just fascinated by deconstructing the technique and the limits they were willing to push.
So, it works for me when it's short and highly stylized as in these travel videos, but kinda annoying when looking at it for extended action sequences.

Here's a pretty comprehensive LED test that was on NoFilmSchool a few weeks back. I thought it was pretty helpful showing the plusses and minuses of a bunch of different brands (including price) in both daylight and tungsten modes:
http://nofilmschool.com/2017/04/2017-led-light-shootout

Some new Kinefinity Terra footage shot in RAW. Call me a believer.
 

Some new Kinefinity Terra footage shot in RAW. Call me a believer.
 

Some new Kinefinity Terra footage shot in RAW. Call me a believer.
 

Some new Kinefinity Terra footage shot in RAW. Call me a believer.
 

BMD's customer service hasn't exactly been stellar either, and they're native English speakers so not sure the comparison really holds water. To me, the advantages of the Terra cameras over BMD are the higher ISO, less FPN in the shadows, lighter weight, cheaper media, ability to add speed-boosters, and more lens mount options. The Ursas obviously have native RAW support via Resolve and faster shipping times. and the UM Pro has native ND which is huge. They're very even competitors in my book, all the way to their near-identical pricing.

BMD's customer service hasn't exactly been stellar either, and they're native English speakers so not sure the comparison really holds water. To me, the advantages of the Terra cameras over BMD are the higher ISO, less FPN in the shadows, lighter weight, cheaper media, ability to add speed-boosters, and more lens mount options. The Ursas obviously have native RAW support via Resolve and faster shipping times. and the UM Pro has native ND which is huge. They're very even competitors in my book, all the way to their near-identical pricing.

One thing the Wing doesn't have is motion control. 
Check out the SliderONE wit motion module for portability. 
I've just picked up the SliderPLUS Pro with both motion modules. 
Edelkrone are the only company where I crave all their products! 

I'm a big fan of the A/B test. Meaning put on your favorite scene from your favorite director (Scorsese, Coppola, Spike Lee, whoever)... and then put on the last thing that you've shot. What are the differences?
The low-hanging fruit are things like sensor size and resolution, followed by dynamic range, bit depth, and motion cadence. Then you move on to lenses, lighting, and camera motion. Then there's color-correction. Followed by production design, locations, and costume choices. And, finally, talent. 
The "look" of your project results from a confluence of all of these things. As you start out, almost none of these will be comparable to your favorite films. But you can pick them off one-by-one. Start noticing things. Get better. Over time you'll inch closer to your idols.
Stu Maschwitz, one of the minds behind Red Giant Software, has been writing about getting a film look out of digital tech since the MiniDV era, then designing products to help you achieve it. Lots of insights in his archive.

I'm a big fan of the A/B test. Meaning put on your favorite scene from your favorite director (Scorsese, Coppola, Spike Lee, whoever)... and then put on the last thing that you've shot. What are the differences?
The low-hanging fruit are things like sensor size and resolution, followed by dynamic range, bit depth, and motion cadence. Then you move on to lenses, lighting, and camera motion. Then there's color-correction. Followed by production design, locations, and costume choices. And, finally, talent. 
The "look" of your project results from a confluence of all of these things. As you start out, almost none of these will be comparable to your favorite films. But you can pick them off one-by-one. Start noticing things. Get better. Over time you'll inch closer to your idols.
Stu Maschwitz, one of the minds behind Red Giant Software, has been writing about getting a film look out of digital tech since the MiniDV era, then designing products to help you achieve it. Lots of insights in his archive.

We have been discussing these things since many years now. The method of analysing the differences is very effective. Since a few years, the obvious technical differences vanished one by one. The famous cinematic look became famous with the affordability of camcorders for no/low budget storytelling (late 1980's, early 1990's). What the owners noticed first were the characteristics of their video, not those of Hollywoods movies. Video look let them invent the cinematic look: a bundle of obvious differences. I suppose everybody here knows Maschwitz' DV Rebel as well as the Zacuto 2012 shootout. If an inept and unambitious guy shot your cats lying on your mundane living room sofa with an Arriflex, would you expect the image to look cinematic? In contrast to that, if you - ambitious and experienced - were on the set of The Godfather, lit by Gordon Willis, and have the intense eyes of Al Pacino staring at you in a reaction shot just with, say, a GH4 ...
I used to say that 24p were obligatory. They are as well a viewing habit as a signal for 'narrated time', whereas HFR (and of course interlace) signalled present tense and real time. But these are not rules of nature, they are just conventions. Ang Lee shot Billy Lynn @120 fps. He explained the experience. For every take of the film, he said, he had to remind himself that he was no longer in Movieland. The sets, the costumes, the camera movements, the acting, the editing, in short: everything had to be more precise. I would have liked to see an HFR version. Unfortunately, the producers decided to process it to 24p for a more *natural* look after unfavourable reviews following a test screening. One critic wrote it was "a fucking crime against cinema".
The world is changed. We can feel it. Fake news everywhere, many of them easily debunked. Some say we are now living in a "post factual era". We don't believe in blatant lies. But it's particularly the mendaciousness of the common sense and political correctness we despise. We desperately needed fresh approaches. This may sound OT for you. But right now cinema (audio-visual storytelling) still has the greatest power over our morals and ways of thinking and feeling. Do we like to live in Movieland? Or force our minds to stay open, to dare new ways, to re-invent cinema? We decide.
 

Im not going to read the pages and pages of wining going on here from people who have not owned a camera from kinefinity so please forgive me if I say something thats already been covered.
Kinefinity is totally a reliable company. I actually get great access to support online and they have been very open to suggestions. They added an anamorphic mode within 2 versions of the firmware. Kinestation is great, their codecs are great KRW is a lossless format that can be converted directly back to DNG (if its not shot in highspeed mode which is 4:4:4 not raw. I would say they push their cameras way further then any other company because they have no top end to gouge so why not make the cameras the best they can be.
Now for the cameras. Ive owned the Kinemini when it first came out and then upgraded my body to the Kinemini4k. I was about to upgrade to the kinemax but then the Terra got announced. Who doesnt want this camera??? You are crazy, just go and spend more money on a Red Camera then. I personally dont have $40k+ to spend on a cinema camera. The image on the kinemini4k is already lovely. A good mix or the red and Alexa honestly. The noise pattern is organic and the range is there.The kinemax 16fstops in Golden 3k, this sold me along with the highspeed options. Now with the Terra comes global shutter and 15/13 stops in a smaller body. I want one so I really hope none of you do so I get one faster.
I got Rich off the forumn here to modify a speedbooster for my Kinemini and then Kinefinity made one shortly after. They are a company who does listen I feel. The mount is awesome, its a sub PL mount with many options. The sensor is Super 35.....
I dont know what else to say really, its a sweet vcamera and Im glad I didnt go with the black magic cameras in the end or other cameras. If you really want to know more then just speculation you can join us users over at Kinecommunity and the Kinfinity User group on facebook.
 
Rob

I'm a big fan of the A/B test. Meaning put on your favorite scene from your favorite director (Scorsese, Coppola, Spike Lee, whoever)... and then put on the last thing that you've shot. What are the differences?
The low-hanging fruit are things like sensor size and resolution, followed by dynamic range, bit depth, and motion cadence. Then you move on to lenses, lighting, and camera motion. Then there's color-correction. Followed by production design, locations, and costume choices. And, finally, talent. 
The "look" of your project results from a confluence of all of these things. As you start out, almost none of these will be comparable to your favorite films. But you can pick them off one-by-one. Start noticing things. Get better. Over time you'll inch closer to your idols.
Stu Maschwitz, one of the minds behind Red Giant Software, has been writing about getting a film look out of digital tech since the MiniDV era, then designing products to help you achieve it. Lots of insights in his archive.

Saw this reposted on dvxuser the other day and found it absolutely fascinating:
Film v Alexa:
http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/
Background:
https://storify.com/tvaziri/steve-yedlin
Philosophical implications:
http://www.yedlin.net/160105_edit.html

Here's a pic of the rig. It's all spare parts or different things I picked up on eBay or at B&H - at least 3 different brands for the top handle, shoulder pad, rails, etc. I have a follow-focus but it's not pictured, and probably didn't use it on that shoot. On the back is a Ken-Lab KS-6 gyro stabilizer. It does help stabilize things a little bit, but it makes noise and the battery runs out after about an hour of use so it's mainly just a counter-weight on the back of the rig.
@mercer - it wasn't ML Raw, just plain-old h.264, but I did use a LUT from Vision Color in-camera, and another (light) pass on color in post.
 

The cheap stabilizers like the Glidecam, etc can give smooth shots but take a long time to balance the camera. Something like that works better for cinema-type shooting where every shot is planned and the extra time to set things up is built into the day. The other disadvantage of those type of stabilizers is they really wear out your wrists and are annoying to use for more than a few shots.
Monopods are good for stability, not so good for freedom of motion. If you imagine yourself following a character around or doing any sort of run-and-gun then these aren't a great solution. The are great if your style is to get lots of different static frames in a day and you'd like to improvise. But if your talent tends to move a bunch, or you don't know exactly what to expect then the monopod will not always be the right tool.
Gimbals obviously give great stability and the newer ones are easier to balance. Ergonomically, they do wear out your wrists and lower back because all the weight is in front of you. And unless you also want to invest in remote follow focus, then you'll have to plan your shots to always be at single focal lengths. Not a huge concern depending on what you shoot, but a limitation nonetheless.
The "holding the strap around my neck" technique works well for a couple shots, but doesn't feel good for a whole day of work. Your wrists and arms eventually tire out, and the image starts to get shaky.
If you plan on getting a shoulder rig, the key thing is to make sure it has enough weight behind the actual shoulder. A lot of the cheaper ones have a shoulder pad but require you to hold the camera up in front of you which, wait for it... wears out your wrists and lower back. If you're shooting the whole day you'll tire out and the images will start to get shaky. A properly balanced shoulder rig, with counterweights behind the shoulder, though heavier, will yield smoother shots and won't tire out your arms as much.
Shoulder rigs also have the advantage of leaving your hands relatively free to make focus adjustments, and giving you a wider range of motion. The trade-off is that you don't get magical steadicam-like shots. You get handheld. Good handheld.
Here's a piece that was shot with a Canon DSLR, and almost completely on a shoulder rig. There are a few super shaky shots in the nighttime intro that were without the rig, but pretty much everything else except the two tripod shots was with the rig. It's not steadicam, but it's smooth enough to tell the story. And you can tell from the "right there" improvisational feeling of everything that I wouldn't have been able to get most of those shots any other way:
 

The cheap stabilizers like the Glidecam, etc can give smooth shots but take a long time to balance the camera. Something like that works better for cinema-type shooting where every shot is planned and the extra time to set things up is built into the day. The other disadvantage of those type of stabilizers is they really wear out your wrists and are annoying to use for more than a few shots.
Monopods are good for stability, not so good for freedom of motion. If you imagine yourself following a character around or doing any sort of run-and-gun then these aren't a great solution. The are great if your style is to get lots of different static frames in a day and you'd like to improvise. But if your talent tends to move a bunch, or you don't know exactly what to expect then the monopod will not always be the right tool.
Gimbals obviously give great stability and the newer ones are easier to balance. Ergonomically, they do wear out your wrists and lower back because all the weight is in front of you. And unless you also want to invest in remote follow focus, then you'll have to plan your shots to always be at single focal lengths. Not a huge concern depending on what you shoot, but a limitation nonetheless.
The "holding the strap around my neck" technique works well for a couple shots, but doesn't feel good for a whole day of work. Your wrists and arms eventually tire out, and the image starts to get shaky.
If you plan on getting a shoulder rig, the key thing is to make sure it has enough weight behind the actual shoulder. A lot of the cheaper ones have a shoulder pad but require you to hold the camera up in front of you which, wait for it... wears out your wrists and lower back. If you're shooting the whole day you'll tire out and the images will start to get shaky. A properly balanced shoulder rig, with counterweights behind the shoulder, though heavier, will yield smoother shots and won't tire out your arms as much.
Shoulder rigs also have the advantage of leaving your hands relatively free to make focus adjustments, and giving you a wider range of motion. The trade-off is that you don't get magical steadicam-like shots. You get handheld. Good handheld.
Here's a piece that was shot with a Canon DSLR, and almost completely on a shoulder rig. There are a few super shaky shots in the nighttime intro that were without the rig, but pretty much everything else except the two tripod shots was with the rig. It's not steadicam, but it's smooth enough to tell the story. And you can tell from the "right there" improvisational feeling of everything that I wouldn't have been able to get most of those shots any other way:
 

The cheap stabilizers like the Glidecam, etc can give smooth shots but take a long time to balance the camera. Something like that works better for cinema-type shooting where every shot is planned and the extra time to set things up is built into the day. The other disadvantage of those type of stabilizers is they really wear out your wrists and are annoying to use for more than a few shots.
Monopods are good for stability, not so good for freedom of motion. If you imagine yourself following a character around or doing any sort of run-and-gun then these aren't a great solution. The are great if your style is to get lots of different static frames in a day and you'd like to improvise. But if your talent tends to move a bunch, or you don't know exactly what to expect then the monopod will not always be the right tool.
Gimbals obviously give great stability and the newer ones are easier to balance. Ergonomically, they do wear out your wrists and lower back because all the weight is in front of you. And unless you also want to invest in remote follow focus, then you'll have to plan your shots to always be at single focal lengths. Not a huge concern depending on what you shoot, but a limitation nonetheless.
The "holding the strap around my neck" technique works well for a couple shots, but doesn't feel good for a whole day of work. Your wrists and arms eventually tire out, and the image starts to get shaky.
If you plan on getting a shoulder rig, the key thing is to make sure it has enough weight behind the actual shoulder. A lot of the cheaper ones have a shoulder pad but require you to hold the camera up in front of you which, wait for it... wears out your wrists and lower back. If you're shooting the whole day you'll tire out and the images will start to get shaky. A properly balanced shoulder rig, with counterweights behind the shoulder, though heavier, will yield smoother shots and won't tire out your arms as much.
Shoulder rigs also have the advantage of leaving your hands relatively free to make focus adjustments, and giving you a wider range of motion. The trade-off is that you don't get magical steadicam-like shots. You get handheld. Good handheld.
Here's a piece that was shot with a Canon DSLR, and almost completely on a shoulder rig. There are a few super shaky shots in the nighttime intro that were without the rig, but pretty much everything else except the two tripod shots was with the rig. It's not steadicam, but it's smooth enough to tell the story. And you can tell from the "right there" improvisational feeling of everything that I wouldn't have been able to get most of those shots any other way:
 

The cheap stabilizers like the Glidecam, etc can give smooth shots but take a long time to balance the camera. Something like that works better for cinema-type shooting where every shot is planned and the extra time to set things up is built into the day. The other disadvantage of those type of stabilizers is they really wear out your wrists and are annoying to use for more than a few shots.
Monopods are good for stability, not so good for freedom of motion. If you imagine yourself following a character around or doing any sort of run-and-gun then these aren't a great solution. The are great if your style is to get lots of different static frames in a day and you'd like to improvise. But if your talent tends to move a bunch, or you don't know exactly what to expect then the monopod will not always be the right tool.
Gimbals obviously give great stability and the newer ones are easier to balance. Ergonomically, they do wear out your wrists and lower back because all the weight is in front of you. And unless you also want to invest in remote follow focus, then you'll have to plan your shots to always be at single focal lengths. Not a huge concern depending on what you shoot, but a limitation nonetheless.
The "holding the strap around my neck" technique works well for a couple shots, but doesn't feel good for a whole day of work. Your wrists and arms eventually tire out, and the image starts to get shaky.
If you plan on getting a shoulder rig, the key thing is to make sure it has enough weight behind the actual shoulder. A lot of the cheaper ones have a shoulder pad but require you to hold the camera up in front of you which, wait for it... wears out your wrists and lower back. If you're shooting the whole day you'll tire out and the images will start to get shaky. A properly balanced shoulder rig, with counterweights behind the shoulder, though heavier, will yield smoother shots and won't tire out your arms as much.
Shoulder rigs also have the advantage of leaving your hands relatively free to make focus adjustments, and giving you a wider range of motion. The trade-off is that you don't get magical steadicam-like shots. You get handheld. Good handheld.
Here's a piece that was shot with a Canon DSLR, and almost completely on a shoulder rig. There are a few super shaky shots in the nighttime intro that were without the rig, but pretty much everything else except the two tripod shots was with the rig. It's not steadicam, but it's smooth enough to tell the story. And you can tell from the "right there" improvisational feeling of everything that I wouldn't have been able to get most of those shots any other way:
 

The cheap stabilizers like the Glidecam, etc can give smooth shots but take a long time to balance the camera. Something like that works better for cinema-type shooting where every shot is planned and the extra time to set things up is built into the day. The other disadvantage of those type of stabilizers is they really wear out your wrists and are annoying to use for more than a few shots.
Monopods are good for stability, not so good for freedom of motion. If you imagine yourself following a character around or doing any sort of run-and-gun then these aren't a great solution. The are great if your style is to get lots of different static frames in a day and you'd like to improvise. But if your talent tends to move a bunch, or you don't know exactly what to expect then the monopod will not always be the right tool.
Gimbals obviously give great stability and the newer ones are easier to balance. Ergonomically, they do wear out your wrists and lower back because all the weight is in front of you. And unless you also want to invest in remote follow focus, then you'll have to plan your shots to always be at single focal lengths. Not a huge concern depending on what you shoot, but a limitation nonetheless.
The "holding the strap around my neck" technique works well for a couple shots, but doesn't feel good for a whole day of work. Your wrists and arms eventually tire out, and the image starts to get shaky.
If you plan on getting a shoulder rig, the key thing is to make sure it has enough weight behind the actual shoulder. A lot of the cheaper ones have a shoulder pad but require you to hold the camera up in front of you which, wait for it... wears out your wrists and lower back. If you're shooting the whole day you'll tire out and the images will start to get shaky. A properly balanced shoulder rig, with counterweights behind the shoulder, though heavier, will yield smoother shots and won't tire out your arms as much.
Shoulder rigs also have the advantage of leaving your hands relatively free to make focus adjustments, and giving you a wider range of motion. The trade-off is that you don't get magical steadicam-like shots. You get handheld. Good handheld.
Here's a piece that was shot with a Canon DSLR, and almost completely on a shoulder rig. There are a few super shaky shots in the nighttime intro that were without the rig, but pretty much everything else except the two tripod shots was with the rig. It's not steadicam, but it's smooth enough to tell the story. And you can tell from the "right there" improvisational feeling of everything that I wouldn't have been able to get most of those shots any other way:
 

The cheap stabilizers like the Glidecam, etc can give smooth shots but take a long time to balance the camera. Something like that works better for cinema-type shooting where every shot is planned and the extra time to set things up is built into the day. The other disadvantage of those type of stabilizers is they really wear out your wrists and are annoying to use for more than a few shots.
Monopods are good for stability, not so good for freedom of motion. If you imagine yourself following a character around or doing any sort of run-and-gun then these aren't a great solution. The are great if your style is to get lots of different static frames in a day and you'd like to improvise. But if your talent tends to move a bunch, or you don't know exactly what to expect then the monopod will not always be the right tool.
Gimbals obviously give great stability and the newer ones are easier to balance. Ergonomically, they do wear out your wrists and lower back because all the weight is in front of you. And unless you also want to invest in remote follow focus, then you'll have to plan your shots to always be at single focal lengths. Not a huge concern depending on what you shoot, but a limitation nonetheless.
The "holding the strap around my neck" technique works well for a couple shots, but doesn't feel good for a whole day of work. Your wrists and arms eventually tire out, and the image starts to get shaky.
If you plan on getting a shoulder rig, the key thing is to make sure it has enough weight behind the actual shoulder. A lot of the cheaper ones have a shoulder pad but require you to hold the camera up in front of you which, wait for it... wears out your wrists and lower back. If you're shooting the whole day you'll tire out and the images will start to get shaky. A properly balanced shoulder rig, with counterweights behind the shoulder, though heavier, will yield smoother shots and won't tire out your arms as much.
Shoulder rigs also have the advantage of leaving your hands relatively free to make focus adjustments, and giving you a wider range of motion. The trade-off is that you don't get magical steadicam-like shots. You get handheld. Good handheld.
Here's a piece that was shot with a Canon DSLR, and almost completely on a shoulder rig. There are a few super shaky shots in the nighttime intro that were without the rig, but pretty much everything else except the two tripod shots was with the rig. It's not steadicam, but it's smooth enough to tell the story. And you can tell from the "right there" improvisational feeling of everything that I wouldn't have been able to get most of those shots any other way:
 

Yes, I shoot handheld very often. Auto-ND is a dream for filming docs, especially when moving in and out of places with diffierent lighting while having to film continuously. For example I filmed the street protests in Korea, with tight spaces and people always touching you and and your gear. Super happy to just have the FS5 with a wireless microphone on the correspondent, and not having to worry about all that fiddly stuff. The handgrip is great. I film with the Sony BUP60 batteries and they hold forever. XLR jacks are great and strong. When the camera is in my bag, I pull it out, switch it on, and film.
When I work with a tripod I do most of the things manually, and then you're right, the difference to a GH4 is not that big. I the end it depends on what you're filming, but for my case, the FS5 is the perfect package, and I'd never ever switch back to something mirrorless/DSLR as my main camera.

On a recent project, where I shot interviews in New York, London, Mumbai, and Barcelona, I filmed interviews in the following configurations:
- with an additional shooter and sound person (me on the b-camera so I could concentrate on asking questions, and the shooter on the A)
- with additional shooter, no sound person (me on b-cam, set-and-forget sound levels with a lav and boom mic feeding into Zoom recorder)
- one-man-band: lav mic on the interviewee, and boom mic on a chair or stand feeding into Zoom H4N recorder. Maybe my Westcott Flex light.
A-cam was Canon DSLR (or c300 mk1 for a couple interviews), B-cam was Canon DSLR or GX85, Zoom H4N (boom and lav mics), Leica R lenses, and usually one light.
There are tradeoffs in every scenario. With a crew of three there are less worries about gear. Everything is taken care of and you can really focus on the questions you're asking, how you respond, and ensuring a strong connection with the subject. This is by far the best. There's nothing worse than being in the middle of a powerful interview where someone may be bursting into tears, or relating the heart of their professional work, and you're sitting there nodding to keep them talking while wondering if your audio levels are too hot.
With just one additional shooter, I find that there's a nice balance between finding the perfect shot and covering your bases on the technical level. That said, something goes wrong on the audio side in these types of setups at least 10% of the time.
I've had nice results working as a one-man-band and keeping the camera setup minimal (sometimes with the GX85 on a table as a second camera). But again, the stress of someone leaning out of focus, the audio levels not being right, camera drifting, or the dreaded 12-minute limit on the DSLR can be intense. On the one hand these interviews are very intimate - it's just you talking to the subject with maybe one light, so sometimes they may feel more comfortable. The conversation can be very free-flowing. On the other hand, on the technical side there is invariably some nagging issue with exposure, focus, audio, or framing.
Picking crew size is like picking the camera, lens, and setup for any shoot. Not every setup is right for every situation. It is important to consider what you'll be shooting and how you'd like to capture it. That is the simplicity you're looking for. The choices about gear and crew size should flow from there.