Raafi Rivero

Everyone makes this mistake and there is no echelon too high for it. “Flat rate” bankrupted Rhythm and Hues. 
Learn that you’re more talented than the upper echelon now. Charge accordingly later. Learn how to charge way, way more so the even higher echelon that awaits won’t screw you over. (They got there by being good at screwing peons over, even screwing over Fincher on Alien 3!) But don’t worry about the credit hurting you. Either the project goes nowhere and no one knows about it or it goes somewhere and it’s a good credit. You’re potentially more fucked, however, if you’re above the line. Drop the directing or producing credit if you have one but don’t want it... but do so carefully. Drop the financial stake immediately.
An artist with a supervising role (one step down from above the line) on a historically top grossing blockbuster and a senior artist on features that have grossed billions told me this about free work (which I don’t do, so I apply this dictum to low rate work, but higher end people often will do free work to curry favor): stipulate a number of revisions and charge way more beyond them, but have that in the contract. If you don't, you'll be working free forever because the contract says you can and you will until you can't unless your client is fucking awesome. I've seen it. At the highest end.
Failing that, if you truly have no leverage, distance yourself and run out the clock. Time is money. If you have a flat rate as regards money, find a way to leverage your time. Don't let others' credits impress you. That's how they know you're a sucker. Deliver slowly. Establish an end date. Then run out the clock.
But also don't let the resentment build up and make things toxic. No, you can't be fully honest, but you need to change the relationship because it's bad to start with. Create a timetable and a reason why you need one (or maybe convince your client to create one around a festival submission or color grading date). Express at least some frustration. Push back. If you don't, your partner will assume you're behind this as much as she is and then you're leading her on in bad faith and that helps no one. It's toxic to you both. Find the leverage you still possess (time and skill are usually it if the contract doesn't specify money per revision or day) and leverage it, but do so honestly. She's not leading you on in bad faith. The real top brass will use the hell out of you, but it sounds like she's merely enthusiastic and naive in this particular capacity. It's not her fault, it's just bad communication.  Make things as good as you can, get what you can out of it, learn, fail, learn more, fail, learn, thrive.
Do so well and in five years you'll be directing Star Wars.

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.

I have mixed feelings on this.
On one hand, I definitely went through a phase with my company where I NEEDED every accessory out there that made my rig look cool. Follow focuses and matte boxes and gini rigs and all. And then there was nothing like rigging up and calibrating a follow focus for a shoot and then never using it, or making a creative decision to switch lenses on set and having to recal. Most of the times we would just say screw it, rip off the follow focus, and just shoot it with peaking. Not like our work is being projected for awards on a 4k cinema screen anyway. Or just being sick and tired of lugging around a 20 pound rig monitors and all, ripping the camera off and shooting it viewscreen style on my painted PVC pipe ghetto rig instead. On set, time is so much money especially when you're paying 1099s.
On the other hand, I had a situation once where the CFO happened to be on set and struck up a conversation with my DP. Asked about the camera (shooting 5d2 ML Raw which was perfect for our overseas shoot) and my DP went blabbing on on how cheap these cameras are today, you can get em for $1k used, etc. And he's blabbing on about this to the CFO, who doesn't see ML Raw hack and raw post processing, he doesn't see Zeiss or Leica glass on the front, he sees an ordinary $1k DSLR camera. And that's a problem too.
Regardless, it's very interesting to hear perspectives of others in this thread.

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.

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.

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.

What's the day-rate for an assistant over there? Going by your setup, I don't think you need more gear or even different gear.

Better to invest in fellow humans than peripheral gear that gets replaced every 9 months and that you already regret immediately after buying. That assistant of yours might actually grow with you and your business, take away your stress of trying to manage a million little technical details, provide a different creative view outside of your own echo chamber and let you step back a bit from worrying about nuts and bolts and concentrate on direction and vision. I mean think about it, instead of monitoring levels on your audio, you can actually listen to the content! Instead of pulling focus you can really direct the talent and assemble the frame you want quicker. The better your work the higher you can request for your budget too no?
Oh and hey, everyone on set (including yourself) might actually enjoy some keen, eager, not yet jaded energy around!

You can simplify only so much. Having done a few interviews as a one man band I like having a couple of audio options - wireless into camera, plus XLR into separate recorder. There's too much going on when you are running by yourself so mistakes are more likely and if I'm totally reliant on a single setup there's no redundancy. I can set and forget the separate XLR system, leaving it to run throughout, then concentrate on getting the camera and wireless audio up and running. If I need to switch the camera off at any stage, the separate audio is still running and can pick up useful dialogue that can still be used with cut aways or B roll. Having only one camera, or one audio source seems a little lean to me if you are getting paid to come up with the goods.

So today was the most frustrating, ridiculous, soul crushing day I have had with a shoot.
I'll explain, but a bit of back story first...
I have been shooting digital video since 1998, professionally (man with a camera stuff e.g. weddings, seminars) since 2005. I have also worked to pay the bills as a producer and sales rep in various tv and video production houses in some parts of the world. My wedding and corporate business was a side gig until this year when I went full time solo for various reasons. I took a break for 3 years circa 2012 to do a master's degree in south Africa and the best camera they had was a hvx200, previously my go to camera was Sony z1.
So when I left Africa and arrived in sunny Helsinki 3 years ago I decided to see what all the DSLR fuss was about now that I was in a first world country.
I joined this forum and perused others, and I fell in love with the community and gear.
When I wrote my business plan for yet another video business venture, I was sure DSLR was the ticket to ride. for the price of a camcorder I could have a studio, with lights et al.
Today I made up my mind that it is not for me.
I had a pretty standard interview which I planned, lit and shot with a gh4 and a micro Cinema Camera as b cam. Yes, I know, but that is not the point.  Matching was not what I was worried about, I have come to know them both very well.
But the endless, finicky bullshit.... Speed boosters, ND filters, v mount batteries, cages, external sound recorder, screws and cables and screws, monitors... 
On top of the standard things you need to be concerned about, like exposure, light and focus... Oh, and the actual bloody interview... Its fucking insane. Excuse my language I am pissed off.
Yes, you could say I need to practice more, but those hours at my rate fiddling with nonsense and fixing mistakes... I may as well have just bought a all around really good camera.
Everything was fine if you do one off jobs, but today was the end of a full week of filming with this apparatus and it is too much for any human to keep track of all the moving parts. Again,, yes you could hire an assistant, but again you may as well invest that money in a camera.
Also, this doesn't include post, and trying to compensate for each cameras numerous ridiculous quirks.
So, in short, I will be investing in a camera in the near future that lets me do my job.
The only things I am now used to is small size. So maybe it's the fs5, I guess I'll see how next year pans out.

Hello all Gear Acquisition Syndrome sufferers, 
I would say that I don't have this disease, but I usually want a piece of gear because I feel there's a need for it. 
Currently I have an FS5 with EF lenses, and a DJI X5R Osmo - the latter of which I'm thinking of selling (for an actual gimbal like the Letus Helix Jr). 
I'm not really getting what I want from the Osmo (limited movement) and I don't have a stills camera, because I sold them. (Sony and Panasonic cameras). 
I'm drawn to the Canon 1DX II because of the DPAF and 4k60p for gimbals and motion slider shots. The autofocus and 4k60p combination would really help me out (better camera movement, better focusing, high quality, increased production value = more profit). 
The stills capability would be bloody great too. 
I have the money to get the 1DX II, but then again I want to upgrade my car. Been having these weird thoughts about buying the Canon 1DX II, making my money back quickly, recouping the funds and then upgrading my car. Sounds perfect, but we all know it isn't as simple as that. 
I'd get the camera in a heartbeat if I knew I could make my money back quickly. So i could get the car upgrade later. 
What do you think? 
(p.s, if you suffer with GAS - please be mindful I believe in money well spent rather than impulsive, expensive mistakes). 

I'm shocked at how nice some of these 1dxII frames are looking. I can finally tell which lenses are sharper than others. 

But you can never use a small sensor and achieve the same pictures as a large sensor. Thats why they are so popular. 
Taking a portrait with 100mm looks so much better (to most) than with a 50mm. Only problem is that on a MFT that 100mm has you backing out of the studion ruining the ascetics regarding background compression.

The only difference between sensor sizes is the workable distance to fill the frame on a certain focal length. And that can be replaced with math and equivalent lenses. If you want the ascetics of FF you need to use FF.
Here you see it clearly. The shooter has used an equivalent focal length and aperture. But look at the background.
A smaller sensor can't give the same frame as the larger at a given distance no matter what.
Even if the larger aperture makes the bokeh looking the same the windows have changed size.

 
So again, Yes, the full frame gives the lenses an ascetic that crop sensors can't replicate and vice versa. Trying to use equivalent focal length and apertures does not help.
 

Thank you!
I honestly cant remember, its been quite a while, but it wasnt too hard, Ill try have a look and try to get something for you
Im currently testing some new settings, heres a few examples, these are all separate projects, so they all have a slightly dif. look.








These are all videoframes, and not pictures, as soon as im done testing these settings, ill share with you guys!
Im considering creating a specific lutpackage that could be sold at a very affordable price, what do you guys think?

More Terra 6K footage was just posted to the Kinefinity Facebook group. I could do without the watermark, but here are the links - viewable in 4K. And more downloadable clips (no watermark):
 

Here are a couple raw shots from my trip/shoot. It's tough to tell how much the settings are doing because it's been very overcast both days I've been here, but the settings I decided on are: contrast: -5, Sharpness: -2, NR: -5, Saturation: -5. The  second shot shows how much contrast the camera is capable of. IBIS looks nice on both (lens is manual with no stabilization):
 

Thanks for posting the tests @Fredrik Lyhne. I had actually seen that clip on YouTube when I was researching this camera. I loved the consistent tonal performance on the skin tones all the way up to 3200iso. 
It's funny, when you're researching a camera sometimes it's easier to find tests than it is to find actual finished pieces shot on it. Especially for a newer camera like this one. 
On on my way to the airport now so I'll be sure to post some stuff once the trip's over. The IBIS was the killer app that made me want the camera. Sure,more expensive bodies like the A7rii have IBIS, but then you've got to deal with the Sony look, and it's almost 4x more expensive. 
Shooting-wise my priority is protecting the highlights so maybe I'll try the adjustment @DPC suggests. 

I agree with what's already being said here, @DPC and @mercer, about not setting this camera up for heavy grading and that's why I use Standard 0, -5, -5, 0. I also underexpose a little as it seems to yield nicer skin tones in my tests. 
I know it's flat lighting and maybe not the best example, but what do you think of those skin tones @DPC? Too contrasty or saturated? Would appreciate any feedback! It's the best I have achieved so far. 
Isn't the lack of a log profile is the main reason why Luis du Mont's skin tones look that way? 
Original:

Corrected WB, lowered mids and raised the highlights:

@Raafi Rivero don't know if this is any useful for you but here's a video which could have an interview situation. Standard 0, -5, -5, 0.
 

Natural Color Profile: 0,-5,-5,-2.
Indoor shots with a 55mm FD lens, Chinese Speedbooster, no filters.
Stabilizer set to 40mm
Highlights set to -2
White Balance Adjust A:3 G:3 
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/sqfycip8z52s3z9/AADEWeIG1R1i1hUObtrLGlrea?dl=0

I know this quote from Inazuma was a few weeks ago, but it is very good advice.
I have been extensively testing various profile settings for my GX8 using an x-rite passport and resolve.
In short I have made these findings :
1) Natural profile gives the best skin tones and overall accuracy of colours, but with too much saturation, particularly in the red channel
2) Standard just seems to add saturation to the base level natural profile -> Not so good
3) There is no point in Cinelike D as natural profile has more accurate colours and I could not detect any significantly increased DR
4) There is no need to de-saturate to -5 unless you want that for artistic reasons. -2 for saturation is optimal to reduce the Panny over saturated reds and give more accurate overall colour rendition.
5) I agree with Inazuma that Natural 0, -5, -5, -2 gives the best results so far, and that is what I will be using from now on, but testing will continue.....

used the gx80 with 12-32 for first time on actual shoot and wanted to share a few thoughts:
- ibis works well to keep camera shake and jitter at bay in run n gun situations like the ones I am used to. If you can manage to walk smoothly you can even pull off some "sort of" gimbal shots.
- resolution, dynamic range and color has greatly improved from gh1 and gh2 (my previous panny cameras)
- the 12-32 lens is a good all rounder for my type of situations, with ETC you get the extra reach when needed. I do really miss a manual focus gear.
- single AF defining the area with touch screen and focusing with half shutter is my preferred way of using this lens. I do wish peaking was enabled also for AF just to be sure. I did miss a couple of out of focus shots looking at the lcd, which confirms my personal hate towards filming with lcd, I much prefer looking into an evf.
- i missed several recordings, because sometimes you need to press twice the rec button, it seems that after 1 min of inactivity the camera goes into a half standby, removing info from screen. 
- hdmi ouput is clean and does not impact lcd or evf output as many panny cameras do
- battery life is rubbish. I had only 1 battery with me and only lasted around 30mins continuos use. Not being able to recharge in camera with the camera on really sucks. With the Blackmagic pocket I could use an external power pack to recharge internal batt and power the cam at the same time and could go on the whole day.
- using standard profile with -5 and shadow +2 I am happy with shadow level and highlight rolloff. I still am not convinced about skin tones, I guess the Blackmagic has spoilt me in this area.
- i cannot make timelapse function work. I just don't get it. I also tried reading the manual but all I can do is set starting time, interval and image count ( I presume you need to put 0 to have infinite takes). But then how do you actually start the function? with shutter it only takes 1 pic....
Here is a pic of my handheld rig I have been using since the GH1 ages, it gives me the flexibilty I need to move quickly and adds some mass to smooth out movement. There is an old 8mm camera pistol grip, a chest pad made out of a metal L bracket with foam and vinyl, Fotga rod with baseplate and manfrotto ballhead with quick release.
Here is a quick selection of clips from the weekend.
 

1dx ii
 

Somehow I missed this review of the GX80's IBIS vs the GX8... interesting.
 

Thanks! We're hoping to play in a few more film festivals first, but are also talking to a couple distributors. Hoping we'll have a deal to announce sooner than later, but you never know.

Good job fellow brooklynite!

Hi folks, I wanted to let the EOSHD community know that my first feature is screening as part of the Urbanworld Film Festival in New York in two weeks. Some of you may live in the city so I’d love to meet you there, or at least let you know it’s happening. While I had been familiar with the site earlier, I became a regular EOSHD reader in the months immediately after we wrapped production. I also started reading Reduser, BMCuser, and DVXuser at that same time, but a year later this is the only of those that I check every day. I think there’s a great mix here of people looking to improve their grasp of technique, and those looking to improve their ideas about creativity itself. That’s why I’ve read and commented so consistently. 
On a technical/gearhead note, we shot principally on the RED Camera, but used the Canon C500 (+Odyssey recorder) for night exteriors, and had some b-roll and pickups shot on the GH4. One scene was even shot on an iPhone, but it was supposed to look like it. Here’s an article in No Film School about the film from a couple weeks ago.
In any case, the New York premiere of my first feature is a big moment in my life and filmmaking career and I’d love to share it with whatever members of this community are able to attend.
Here’s a link to the screening info and the trailer is below. Thanks!