TwoScoops

The new drug is the attention they get from posting the 'activities' online.  

https://www.fxguide.com/featured/boom-times-the-wolf-of-wall-street/
This article says they used a C500 with the Gemini recorder (12-bit)  and shot in 4K. Actually worth a read besides that too. 

https://www.fxguide.com/featured/boom-times-the-wolf-of-wall-street/
This article says they used a C500 with the Gemini recorder (12-bit)  and shot in 4K. Actually worth a read besides that too. 

I wold expect a new mount and any FF camera to have a F mount adapter ready to go.
I don't give much to it being the "same" old F mount as while yes, the lenses will mount to all the cameras, they don't all work.
Geez, there are still current cameras that wont work at all with the latest E lenses and then all those bodies without a screwdrive motor and all the bodies that can actually be BROKEN using some older lenses!
I wouldn't be worried about Nikon F mount adapters for mirrorless though.     They even had adapters that can auto focus some of those old manual focus Nikon lenses on some Nikon cameras too (1.6x) with a couple of old adapters (similar to the ones for Pentax, Sony and others- there was even one that auto focused Nikon lenses on Minolta/Sony A mount cameras).
Whatever they do, I am sure it will be great but they need to do it soon (as do Canon).
 

I agree with not comparing it to a new 4k camera, but this is the best I've seen from that sensor (BMMCC tho)

 
 

" Show me some cinematic looking footage shot with this camera"
-  shows cinematic footage shot with the camera
"They could make any camera look good"
Yeah we all know that the skills of those shooting are the most important factor in terms of end result. But you asked for cinematic footage from the camera ??
One of those skills though is also choosing a camera / lens package.
There have been Zeiss super 16 format Superspeeds as long as the 35mm format ones have existed.  They're great and actually pretty cheap.  Mostly in AB or PL m ount which can be easily adapted to MFT.
Unfortunately at this price there are many users that are new to filmmaking, or maybe see filmmaking as a hobby.  Blackmagic are exposing many users to a RAW or even high DR LOG workflow for the first time.  I see people slapping on LUTs designed for other cameras, not bothering to grade or even learn Resolve turning out half arsed results.
But.
If you're willing to step up YOUR game, willing to LEARN how to grade within this workflow, the camera will not hold you back.  The codec will not get in your way. 
It won't guarantee success either, you still have to be able to light, make nice frames and have a plan.  But you won't hit a ceiling with the camera very quickly in terms of image fidelity.
JB
 
 
 

That goes without saying. 

I wanted to post this but since you originally found it, I didn’t want to step on your toes. 
As I said before, if someone had told me this was shot on an Alexa, I don’t know if I would have questioned it.

I agree with not comparing it to a new 4k camera, but this is the best I've seen from that sensor (BMMCC tho)

 
 

why are we comparing footage from a FHD camera released 5 years ago with a S16 size sensor to an upcoming camera that shoots 4K with brand new M4/3 size sensor, 4th generation color science and featuring dual native ISO?
the only thing the original pocket & the upcoming pocket 4K share in common is the "pocket" moniker and even that is misleading imo.
if anything the IQ will be closer to a GH5S without NR/Sharpening, and with BMDs Film/Log profile, color science & pro res / raw recording support.

I wouldnt be very optimistic about the long term income prospects for stock video
Take this site...
https://www.shutterstock.com/
Look at the stock video rates - typically US$79 for a 1080p clip and US$199 for 4k - sounds like a good business right?
Then take a look at the stock photo rates on the same site. A US$29 monthly fee gets you 10 images or US$2.9 an image. And if you want a lot of images a month, you can get them for as little as 27cents an image.
Essentially stock  photo prices have fallen by over 95% in the past 15 years (with the democratisation of photography). I know of 3 photographers who 15 years ago were working full time on stock photography (for Getty) and say they were making a very good living. Now they make almost nothing.
My guess is that video is probably half way through that democratisation process (which basically ends with everyone having decent video, video af, stabilisation on their cameras.) And it is pretty likely stock video prices will fall pretty rapidly.

Caught this one recently. The story has been done plenty of time before, but it's a great effort with minimal budget/crew. 5D3 h.264 in cinestyle, going from the comments/bts. 
 
 

hahaha! where are you living?With 150K per year here, you could buy a nice little house on a different Mediterranean island per year! and in Vietnam you could buy a - not that small - village.

Shallow depth of field is a storytelling tool. Some people went overboard with it and most were do to lens tests on YT but for filmmaking... the reasons discussed here have missed the best argument for it for the low budget filmmaker.
The beauty of the 5D2, t2i, and other larger sensor cameras that started the DSLR Revolution, wasn’t only that more people had access to inexpensive cameras, it’s that low to no budget filmmakers could shoot with shallow DOF and blur the background. It hid the flaws in amateur sets, and hid the public during guerrilla shooting. For the first time, a no budget filmmaker could take a camera into a restaurant and look like a tourist while they shot a dialogue scene.
Sorry... but to say it’s overused, is like saying you don’t like a two shot because most dialogue scenes open with them.
And sorry again, but how can anyone find FTWD better than TWD? I like both for different reasons but there really isn’t a comparison in filmmaking, acting and story. Saying one is more ridiculous than the other is an argument that isn’t allowed in a story about the zombie apocalypse. 
And finally, I agree about the digital look of FTWD compared to TWD... especially when they are on back to back. I love the Alexa, it is the best digital image on the planet... and in my opinion nothing comes close to it. But the S16 on TWD is just in a different league. I was actually curious why? S16 has always looked kinda meh to me, even when done right... but TWD cinematography looks like an epic.

I found that prominent shallow depth of field is just effect which has to be used sparingly. Or, at least in movie oriented creation (contrary to photo/portraiture oriented), it is as secondary element deeply subordinated to the logic and content of composition - more often it interrupts and distracts narration than adding to it as amplification of some particular impression. It seems to me that it is tool that go in pair mostly with medium+ to close up shots - or in psychological very specific creative decision (sort of effect of subject alienation)... But I know that I'm not at all original in these remarks - I repeat it just as sign of revolt against shallow depth of field as a priori rule of beauty or quality

If you had the courage to watch everything of TWD, then spend some more time on the Fear, it is a much better series right now, with real characters, believable action and - almost - an interesting plot (still there are some wtf?! moments script wise, but the original is full of them, and only!).
Shallow depth of field is another sentence of the filmic language. One of the latest jobs I did as a focus puller it was a nightmare to pull focus on a C300mkII, and in most movies I have worked, DoP were commonly using 5.6f, and working around there. After 5DmkII, anyone that could afford 30$ to rent a 5DmkII were making videos with a 50mm with the shallowest depth of field possible, and were calling that "art". Something similar is happening now with the "pseudo-bokeh", on mobile phones, which is a great selling point for most companies (I bought a mobile phone with a ultra wide lens as a second lens, instead of a fake bokeh effect, way more useful for me). As I said there are unlimited threads about it, and I am way off topic.
 

I’m not sure I can agree with the absolute claim of “not useable” because...well I use them all the time in pretty bright situations.
Yes in some situations the glare makes it impossible but I can make it work the vast majority of the time.
https://www.flickr.com/gp/johnbrawley/10XBcm
Here’s an operator making do on a shoot in colombia.
 
And here’s a shot on a recent rig  
Yeah it could be brighter. But it’s not unuesable if you want a camera that’s small and compact. Or it functions well enough as your camera function screen once you fit an external monitor that better suits your needs. 
 
JB

This. You'll generally find that those making the most noise about gear make very little themselves of any worth to anybody.

I remember thinking Christian Bale’s outburst sounded perfectly justified. He was the only side that was talking/shouting any sense from what could be heard. ‘I was looking at the light’ implies Hurlbut was too busy and impatient to give the actor any consideration or much courtesy of space (sounded like it was not for the first time). Bale was playing an intense character in a poor film directed by a terrible director. Any actor of worth would want to protect their space for themselves when put into situations where their presence of mind has to be totally focused into a character, especially when trying to maintain a continuity of intensity throughout a scene that has a break or pause in shooting due to an adjustment of a lamp. This was apparently a hugely inappropriate moment for the DP to break the scene for the actor, Bale was right to complain. Hurlbut should have been sensitive to what was happening and been able to voice why he felt justified in breaking the scene to correct a technical issue...he didn’t, at least not to Bale’s satisfaction.
Even on the bigger budget projects I’ve experienced , I’ve noticed basic set etiquette such as avoiding actors eyelines during rehearsal and shooting often gets overlooked...sometimes a bite back from an actor can make the crew appreciate how fucking hard it can sometimes be to do their work with a million and one distractions and disruptions. But as soon as an actor voices any complaint, then they can get labelled as ‘difficult’. Their job is to make their job look easy, that’s why they get the big bucks. More crew members should take acting classes to get a taste of what is to be expected in front of the lens, it’s a real eye opener and can massively help understand and empathise with an actors needs sometimes.
IMHO Phones that are not being carried by production or hair+makeup/ art dept (for continuity stills) should be smashed with a hammer - If found making noise or (just as bad) someone checking Facebook in front of the director during takes. It’s disrespectful to not at least hide any phone use on a set. It’s like any creative workplace, the best work can often easily be compromised by distraction. Ive noticed that commercials/ music videos that may be shot non-sync often breeds more phone use, since the more relaxed attitude to crew noise levels can breed other behaviour that normally would be frowned upon if shooting sync and having constant calls for quiet.
If your fellow crew members (or director) are happy about using phones on a set...at least give your actors/performers a break from seeing or hearing them when they are trying to prepare or execute a performance. It is simple respect.

FIRE! Everything is more fun with that :-P

Are those special stunt bricks, rubber ones? Or just normal bricks?
 
Is about three years and a bit I've had it. 

But once it was only a year or two long then it pretty much stopped growing any more. 



Did anyone notice the seat created out of apple boxes that DoP was leaning/sitting on? I found that amusing. 

Oh, and the hat I was wearing I got given the day beforehand for FREE! :-D 
As we were shooting in clothes store. 

There's a stage when it gets itchy that most people can't get past, but after that it's all fine.  I used to have a goatee and every year for Movember someone would ask me about how long the itchiness goes for

The amazing Olympus 25/1.2 Pro with a Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4. The urge to invest in the 17/1.2 and the 45/1.2 keeps on growing  
 

Thought it would be interesting to share the BTS videos we take on shoots. 

This is BTS from a car mount shoot, and what I did to capture the audio: