Raafi Rivero

Your motivation for making films, especially independent films, can't be solely about profit. Your passion to tell stories must be at the core of why you do this work. Otherwise go be a dentist. People will always be willing to have their teeth fixed. Willing to pay for art? Not so much.
As far as making a living as a filmmaker there are several options downstream from big budget Hollywood director. Those options become less and less appealing by the time you get to something like "Briss videographer", but they exist.
As far as cutting through the clutter and achieving mainstream, critical, and financial success? Those projects are rare birds indeed. It's why filmmakers idolize people like Tarantino, Kevin Smith, and Steven Soderbergh. Because they did it.  As JCS said earlier in the thread, you simply have to make an exceptional film. 
I can remember seeing Christopher Nolan's Memento in a theater. No big stars, just a phenomenally interesting concept executed at the highest level. The trajectory from there to Inception was not guaranteed, but the promise was certainly there from the beginning. Keep working. Get better. Find your level. I'm pulling for you.

These days working with ML raw is a breeze. Reqired CF cards are much cheaper than a year ago. I have 5d3 and love working with raw. I have bought 2 sandisks 128gb 160mb/s and they NEVER gave me dropped frames. Never unexpected recording stop. NEVER. It is very reliable. 128gb last for about 25min 24/25p 1080p.
My workflow now is:
-put CF card to the reader - 2 seconds
-use  an app called MLVFS which "mounts" the files from the card and makes them virtual CDNGs - 128gb take maybe about 30 seconds
-open resolve 12 and import files - 30 seconds
Color correct, cut, do everything and export  - there is NO need for any conversions at all.
Thats it. There is some nice app, all-in-one solutions in the making right now  - called MLVProducer.
On shoot i had 4 CF cards and nextodi 2730 with 2TB HDD onboard. Archiving 128gb takes about 25min. Then i can take HDD out, plug it to the PC via sata cable and work straight from it. Memory is getting cheaper very fast. Instead of investing 2-3 thousands $ into new camera (and cry about 8bit etc) i rather buy 8 new sandisk cards for 1300$ and have 200 minutes available without a need of copying it on set.

You guys have probably already seen it, but here's another vid:

I have been using this:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?327893-A7s-S-log2-too-noisy-Then-underexpose-cine4
My Go Cuba vid was all shot in this setting...

Hey folks, I've been posting here for close to a year. All the while working on this project in the background. It's a dramatic coming-of age tale. We shot on both Canon c500 and Red cameras, with vintage Cooke S2 lenses. Let me know what you think!

I've been shooting for a living for over 2 decades, and one of the definitive signs that someone is an amateur is any statement like the above.
That's some massive insecurity you've got going on, man. Professionalism isn't about the gear.  

If I can cut the onion a tiny bit slimmer -- I'm not loving much of the cinematography in the clips on that thread, but the image quality itself (i.e. skin-tones, dynamic range, rolling shutter, etc.) looks pretty good. It's like, playing on a Fender won't make the average guitarist into Jimi Hendrix.

I didn't either... I suppose it's not too inappropriate in the era of internet BS.
By the way... There's loads of new info, clips and photos of the Ursa Mini 4.6K at:
http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.php?15520-Brief-thoughts-and-a-bit-of-footage-from-the-URSA-Mini-4-6K/page3

The Canon 50mm L was the lens that convinced me to finally invest in high(er)-end glass. I had been shooting a vintage set of Pentax Super Takumars for years (the 50mm 1.4 Super Tak is my first love), but compared to the 50mm L on back-to-back shoot days it just couldn't deliver the sharpness and fall-off of the modern glass. That day and subsequent days shooting the L 50mm (and other L lenses) gave me so much confidence. 
After an exhaustive search I found that the Leica Rs give the right amount of sharpness and pop in the image, with a comparable amount of... "romance?"... character? that the vintage lenses often provide for my style of shooting and content.
If anyone else is thinking of jumping in to the Leica game, over the past year I've compiled this vimeo collection of stuff shot on them (none by me, sadly). You'll find that they're quite versatile.

I have both: the Minolta MC 35mm 1:1.8 HH and the 28mm MD 1:2.
Both are great lenses: the 35mm is a kind of magic in terms of  sharpness and 3d rendering!
The 28mm MD is also very sharp, but better in case of colors...(in my opinion).

I do the conversion by myself, so that wasn´t expensive, but has cost a couple of hours - work.

Here is the 35mm 1:1,8 and the 50mm 1:1,4:
Minolta lenses are underrated!

I think it also make sense when we call our camera/sensor size:
I film in Full Format (5d) and after testing a lot of lenses, especially primes, I came back again to the Canon 24-70mm/2,8 L MKI as my main lens!
In the end it has beaten all of my other lenses in case of "character" and color rendition!

But under special circumstances I love several Minolta lenses, (modified to EF mount):
Minolta Rokkor MD 45mm 1:2 - a 30,-€ lens with a beautiful color - and 3d performance!
Also the Minolta MC 35mm 1,8 HH (excellent sharpness, very 3d-ish, but colors not as good as the 24-70, too blue, too magenta).
The Minolta MD 24mm 1:2,8 (Collaboration with Leica) - a ultra sharp and clean 24mm wide angle lens on FF!
Nikkor 85mm f2 ai - simply a nice, sharp and affordable lens.

Nikkor ai/ai-s lenses always surprised me. They innately deliver a very special cinematic image!
I want to have more of it, so I am looking forward to further recommendations...

Here a quick test of the Minolta 45mm (f2 is very ordinary, but from 2,8 it shines:)
 

 

I built a set of vintage Leica R's this year -- 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, 135mm. Not planning on using anything else except an occasional zoom for a long time. Here are a couple pics of the set from before I added the 28.
 
 

 

I built a set of vintage Leica R's this year -- 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 90mm, 135mm. Not planning on using anything else except an occasional zoom for a long time. Here are a couple pics of the set from before I added the 28.
 
 

 

hello everybody!
 
Yesterday I’ve been to the Southbank in London to shoot some footage and do a quick grade to see how the camera perform in a real world situation. I’ve also wanted to check how an adapted EF lens worked on the camera so i used a Canon 24-105 with a Metabones Mark IV. Apart from a couple of very wide shots everything have been shot handheld in S35 mode. (therefore apologies for the odd shaky clip!)
 
I’m gonna due a proper write up in due course but for now some random thoughts:
 
- Overall the camera have been an absolute pleasure to use: the ergonomic of the body is much better compared to the previous generation cameras, the slightly chunkier body provides a much better grip and the EVF is big and bright, the best I’ve ever used together with the Fuji X-T1
 
- Having an extra custom button and, most importantly, being able to assign the record to a button of your choice makes a big difference!!
 
- Unfortunately some software limitations that i always found annoying in the a7s are still present, namely: the inability to set a custom white balance from the movie mode, the focus magnification which is way inferior to the one in still mode (only 4x magnification, sometimes in not enough to achieve a proper focus!), the inability to assign the S35/APS-C crop mode to a custom button and the bloody NTSC warning message! I really hope some (or better all) of these things will be fixed with a future firmware update!
 
- Unfortunately the experience with the Metabones have been quite frustrating as usual… Like other users reported the focus performance in still mode is indeed impressive, almost on par with the one on a canon body but in movie mode things are very different: definitely much better than the a7s but not as fast as still mode, moreover i couldn’t get the camera to focus at all past 70mm, i don’t know if it’s a lens problem, an adapter problem or something with the camera but in the end i went back to manual focusing because it was super annoying! 
 
- I’ve tried to shot a variety of material to test the camera strengths and weaknesses and i have to say I’m even more impressed now after I quickly graded the footage with film convert (using the a7s profile since they haven’t released one for the a7r II yet). I once again had the impression that the camera is as good as the a7s in terms of dynamic range and the files are generally cleaner to start with because of the lower native ISO. This is completely unscientific and untested so take this with a grain of salt but there is something that i really like in the colours that I never experienced with the a7s before (at least not with so little grading work required) so i’m starting to wonder whether Sony improved the colour science on this camera.. again, totally unscientific and unsubstantiated, just a gut feeling really but I’ll definitely do some more comparisons to find out!
 
- Real life usage confirmed the very positive impressions about the low light performance of the S35 mode.. the camera is remarkably clean all the way to the top ISO setting (and yes, there are at some shots in the clip that have been shot at ISO 25600!) 
Before last week if somebody told me that I could have shot usable material at ISO 25600 on a 42 megapixels still camera i would have laughed in their face! 
 
-I’m pretty sure that part of the great performance of the camera is down to the extremely efficient codec and there’s a shot in the video that i think show this very well: at 04:59 there’s a blue flag on an almost completely flat blue sky shot at ISO6400… while i was shooting i thought “right, this is the recipe for disaster: an uniform colour in the whole frame at high ISO with a compressed 8bit 4:2:0 codec, it’s gonna be the festival of banding!”… boy i was wrong! there’s not a hint of it, the file is clean as a whistle!
 
Thanks for watching!
 

Ahah, thanks mate! I'm not sure i have particularly steady hands so that probably means the stabilisation is pretty good indeed! :-) I'm not sure if SteadyShot works in conjunction with the IS in the Canon lens or not but the results are pretty good indeed! 
I wouldn't worry too much about the colours being muted, that is my choice of grading really! 
Some shots are a bit noisy indeed but keep in mind that I was on a f4 lens so the ISO i've used at night ranged from 6400 all the way up to 25600 in three shots, that's quite impressive if you ask me! Also i haven't denoised the footage, i got very nice results using the temporal noise reduction in Resolve on the a7s so i have no reason to believe it won't work as good on the a7rII.
Last but not least youtube compression is quite severe so i wouldn't use that as a judgement of quality.. I've inspected the source footage quite carefully and it looked very clean and free of muddiness and/or macro blocking. 

With the back-of-the-envelope math, it still seems like the Ursa Mini - 4k version - is the better bargain. Even the flip-out screen on the Ursa Mini gets you up and running right away, no need for an EVF.
@Taranis -- there's no way I'd take that C-Box out in the field. it just doesn't look suited for actual production unless you're in a studio.

I think the reason we spend so much time writing and obsessing about gear on forums is that there are actually two processes involved in getting better at the craft of making films. One is a technical process: how to achieve better shots, better sound, smoother motion, dynamic range, etc. This part is easy to talk about -- we often don't own the gear we're arguing about. And it's fun! The second process needed to improve is an artistic or aesthetic process. And it's more difficult to talk about because it derives from feelings rather than facts, taste rather than spec sheets. It's much easier to say 4k is better than 2k, and much more fraught to say that, gulp, Michael Mann is better than Oliver Stone, etc. And it's even more difficult to prove. 
Further, there remains some part of being an artist that requires you to walk off into the extremity of your experience and actually come back to people with something unique to say. Something touching or funny, and above all true.
 Years ago I wrote a series of posts on No Film School about the craft of directing, and have shot (directed) short films, a feature film, and numerous music videos and works for clients. It's not that people don't want to talk about directing or the craft of the art form itself, it's just that some part of that is personal. Maybe somewhere on the web there's a place where people launch into polemics against "fake Wes Anderson" style, or dolly-zoom shots, but I haven't found it. And the truth is it's hard​ to talk about one's artistic process, and even harder to hear someone tell you why it sucks. But point of view does leak out over time on a forum like this. That's why getting to know the various voices over a series of posts counts for something in the long run.
One of the longest threads on Reduser is called "shut up and shoot that Scarlet". But there's an even longer one with people posting pictures of their rigs. To reply to fuzzynormal's original post, no I don't need a new camera. But I always want one. And talking about it will do in the meantime.

I don't think that Super 35/APS-C will be going anytime soon. For photography, maybe, but for motion pictures it is by far the most developed format. It's the perfect equilibrium between sensor size, lens size and depth-of-field. And while full-frame does have a tremendous range of optics available, it doesn't have the specific range that's desired by professional filmmakers. Look at the Leica Summilux primes. From 16mm to 100mm, all super-fast at 1.4, all the same exact size and with an identical front diameter. The Master Primes go from 14mm to 135mm, all virtually the same size and weight, at 1.3. This is something that would be very difficult or impossible to replicate in full frame format. I've never seen a full frame lens wider than 20mm that's faster than T2. Ditto for a full frame lens longer than 85mm. And for people harping about depth-of-field, 1.4 on Super 35 is about equal to 2 on full frame. Hell, if you really got a hard-on for shallow depth-of-field, pick up the new Vantage Ones  at T1 for large-format style razor-thin DOF craziness. Either way, the options are there in Super 35.
And I haven't even gotten to all the other types of glass. An entire universe of zooms, macros, tilt-shift, periscope, vintage, anamorphic, and all other manner of specialty and custom glass. Spend ten minutes browsing the shelves of Panavision and see how much is available to you in Super 35.

I think the reason we spend so much time writing and obsessing about gear on forums is that there are actually two processes involved in getting better at the craft of making films. One is a technical process: how to achieve better shots, better sound, smoother motion, dynamic range, etc. This part is easy to talk about -- we often don't own the gear we're arguing about. And it's fun! The second process needed to improve is an artistic or aesthetic process. And it's more difficult to talk about because it derives from feelings rather than facts, taste rather than spec sheets. It's much easier to say 4k is better than 2k, and much more fraught to say that, gulp, Michael Mann is better than Oliver Stone, etc. And it's even more difficult to prove. 
Further, there remains some part of being an artist that requires you to walk off into the extremity of your experience and actually come back to people with something unique to say. Something touching or funny, and above all true.
 Years ago I wrote a series of posts on No Film School about the craft of directing, and have shot (directed) short films, a feature film, and numerous music videos and works for clients. It's not that people don't want to talk about directing or the craft of the art form itself, it's just that some part of that is personal. Maybe somewhere on the web there's a place where people launch into polemics against "fake Wes Anderson" style, or dolly-zoom shots, but I haven't found it. And the truth is it's hard​ to talk about one's artistic process, and even harder to hear someone tell you why it sucks. But point of view does leak out over time on a forum like this. That's why getting to know the various voices over a series of posts counts for something in the long run.
One of the longest threads on Reduser is called "shut up and shoot that Scarlet". But there's an even longer one with people posting pictures of their rigs. To reply to fuzzynormal's original post, no I don't need a new camera. But I always want one. And talking about it will do in the meantime.

​You know who else got that speech - me.  Well everyone has had this speech.  Let's see who else - oh right - Louis C.K. who started making short films.
But this is the thing I sense talent in baxter's film - he has something to say, more so than most of online films that are Terrence Malick rip offs or Wes Anderson rip offs or Horror films - I feel that there is something here.
And I'm sure Louis C.K. wanted to quit, but he didn't - he kept going, he got more honest - he found his voice.
If you are an artist, you're going to do your art whether or not "the public" likes it - because you need to - it's a tool - a coping mechanism for life.  A way to process life.
Maybe Baxter can do it for fun and not try to make money off it - that's fine.
Once you "start making money" you get a lot of people telling you to change things.  And that's not fun either.
Shoot your weddings, make them beautiful - do whatever you are doing and make it beautiful - if you have a mop, mop as well as you can.
I spent 7 hours last night regrading two pieces I shot, not because someone asked me to but because I wasn't happy with them.  And I'm still not happy with them, but I am happier.

​Dude you made a feature film how many people can say that NOT many Nobody likes their work name me one artist director that loves his films or art and say Shit man i am good this is good
No for some HARD CANDY LOVE stop bitching and moaning you wont get any sympathy from me and go have fun by making short films and stop thinking that one day you will be some bog movie director. You think all those directors you mentioned started because they wanted to be big and important at the beginning NO they do what they love. Keep doing what you love and if one day you make it then more power to you my philosophy is if i don't like it if it is giving me stress i don't do it.

PS I was in a war 4 years at age 14 (Bosnia) lost 2 brother and father to that war escaped to Croatia over the mountain took me 3 weeks  to travel 230k almost got killed in doing it, from there went to Pakistan for 2 years as refugee almost got raped in one of the refugee camps, come to Canada with red cross was homeless for 6 months in Toronto barely spoke any English lived from shelter to shelter could not get work thanks to my English took me 3 months to get welfare got my education went to collage for graphic design and film All that was 15 years ago do i make films NO do i work as Graphics designer NO I fabricate kitchens in a small town make good money have a beautiful family my own place nice SUV car there is clean water coming from my tap i have electricity and this film staff i do it as hobby and threat it as professional hobby why because it makes me happy
 
But i am the happiest when i take my 2 kids to the park every day watching them play while i sip my coffee what i am tying to say don't over think just do what makes you happy if you make it then good
I don't know it any of this makes any sense

One more suggestion. Canon is doing a 2 year 0% financing (I just took advantage of this). If he was looking to get a C300 or C100 he could put down half up front, and spend the rest on other gear. Pay off the remainder as jobs come in the next couple of years.

Calculate the predicted rental charges on 3 years of FS7 or C300 Mark II shooting then deduct it from the predicted depreciation value of the cameras in that same time period. I predict the C300 II would lose $6000, the FS7 $4000.
If the rental costs exceed that in 3 years then it makes more sense to buy them.
Not to mention, buying allows them to be used for your own personal creative work!
Lenses hold their value well.
A7S a good choice too. But in his situation I'd probably get the FS7, a Mac Pro, a 4K display & spend the rest on Canon lenses and LED lights.

​Interesting questions. I would say, overall, yes it did. It was easy enough to run and gun if you need it, even though the camera is obviously built for crew shoots. Responsiveness is very good- certainly a breath of fresh air over Magic Lantern Raw. The battery grip is terribly overpriced but also very useful for run and gun. Menu navigation is snappy and intuitive, but the physical joystick navigation isn't as much so. I have had no problems on two shoots so far with crashes/hangs/general reliability. Being able to store 4 preset settings is useful and timesaving.