webrunner5

Well I agree most modern camera Can get the job done, but every manufacturer has a "Baked In Look" to them. They can't all look like a Arri or Arri would sue the hell out of them. And on the low end cameras they look worse than the high end cameras. Sony is not going to sell you a A6000 that looks just like a F55! The new GH5 is not going to look like the 45,000 dollar Varicam, get real. Like TwoScoops says, you have to buy a More Cinematic camera to get a Cinematic look. And that usually means a higher end camera. Like 5,000 bucks or way more for one new one or used, that maybe cost that much or more in the past. If high end movie makers are not buying A6000's to make great movies, I doubt we are going to buy one and make it Cinematic as hell. But we can try if that is all we can afford. Can we make a pretty good movie well yes. BMPCC can do it about as well as anything we can afford. But it does take everything to click to make it happen, right lens, right lighting, right grading, right edit, on and on. And well, big need, Right Story. But we are in a position of being able to afford a camera that Can make a decent, no very good movie, for not a heck of a lot of money camera wise new or used, and with these new LCD lights that is not a killer thing to buy anymore either. We do have a Chance to look more professional now, I think, than we ever had before.. I just received, bought, a Refurbed AG-AF100AP camera that I have taken two test shots with that I am Very encouraged that it can produce a some pretty amazing, well at least great footage. Well sort of amazing for what you can buy one for now. I really think I have no excuse now to blame the camera, it is ME that will be the blame. And that leads back to a lot of these comments, it is on OUR shoulders to make it happen really with any camera now, it sort of can be done. We need to read articles, watch others movies,take advice from here and Make it happen. Not as easy as it sounds, but hey it is certainly something we enjoy, and strive to accomplish.

Wow, "extremely brightly" sounds like a blowout from hell on their faces. You are going to have to diffuse it a little somehow, maybe move them way back, or your sensor is going to go into meltdown LoL. Naked light sources on a face, ahh I don't think that is a plan. You are going to have to have a camera like a Arri to handle the DR. Try this website for some good suggestions. About the eaisest page I have found to see differnet looks that work. https://postimg.org/image/c3e3dnmht/

Yeah if you study the greats in film making they use a lot of camera angles we really can't even afford to do. They are masters of isolation. Having views in films you are not accustomed to, I think, keeps you glued to the seat to see something you have never seen before in a sense. Sort of the unknown , and humans are in reality, a curious breed. Plus lets face it, they have the best of the best on every high dollar film, using 35mm, Panavision, CinemaScope,70mm, etc from script writing, acting, acquisition, best DP, lighting equipment from hell, best focus pullers, and editing, not counting top notch audio, you name it, and a 50 piece Symphony Orchestra. Hard to go wrong with that. "We should be so lucky" as they say. But I guess even with all that, more stuff probably bombs than makes 300 million bucks. So don't feel bad if your efforts, at times, does not come out so hot.

I said long time ago on here I bet Panasonic would have h.265. They have to. Data is just getting to large for the average person to handle. Not everyone in the world has or can even begin to afford a i7 Intel 1500 dollar CPU. It was, and is inevitable. And they will not be alone in this.

Hmm funny you say LS300, someone I talk with a lot will laugh at this statement, I just don't think I would want it. Maybe doing Weddings?, uhh thinking, ahh I can't think.. I just don't see a damn thing that stands out on it other than the crop factor ability. That is interesting. but... Pass, Pass, Pass. It is a glorified Sony VG 10-30! Which by the way I had all 3!!! My Bad. Now all were Very used, and cheap as hell. But I did like the form factor. Just goes to show Sony is a Whore just like Canon is by not wanting to take away their cash Cows!! And we get screwed in the end. Christ. Was the VG-30 going to replace a Sony F3, no, but with a little more effort it could have been a vacation camera from hell, even do Weddings. No they had to shit it up. But I am going to say we all on here are looking for the best camera we can get for the buck, not what camera can Make us a Buck. So the LS300 is probably a winner in that category.

I agree it has some pretty good, maybe great resolution, but... Like you sort of hinted at, maybe too good. I think most of us on here are looking for more of a Cine look, I am afraid the GH5 is just going to be a GH4 on Steroids! Still videoish, is that a word? Too much, later Panasonic video camera, looking. But I have to admit I guess I would rather have too much data to play with then too much less. We have seen rays of hope on it from a few people. I am sure it is going to sell like Hotcakes, but is it our brand, style of Hotcakes on here? I have to admit, it really is Not on my Radar at all. Nada. I can think of 3 or 4 older semi pro, pro used cameras that I would buy before it in a heartbeat for 2 to 3 grand or less. And yes, the FS700 IS on that list. Someone got a deal of a lifetime with is auction. That is a Video camera! http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-NEX-FS700U-w-4K-Upgrade-and-Zacuto-Accessories-/322441953597?hash=item4b1309c13d%3Ag%3AzScAAOSw32lYuwn2&nma=true&si=BN8gvAtMb%252BuG%252BtYOSgQcP31agMs%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 T

I agree, in 2017 you are dead in the water if you don't have 4k on a camera that is like a C100 price wise. I think it would be suicide. Raw, I don't think so either. I just hope they don't think they can charge 6000 bucks like the Ursa Mini Pro is. Needs to be more like 4700, 4900 tops to sell I think. I kind of think the Ursa Mini Pro is a bit overpriced to be honest. I think it should have been more like 5300, 5400ish. I will say it again, I think Panasonic needs to come out with a 4k AF100 for say, 4000 to 4400 bucks.

About the most complete review of it I have ever seen. Looks like a Arri Alexa for half the price, and it does 4k they say. Not perfect, like any camera. But close. http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/panasonic-varicam/review-panasonic-varicam-lt-4k-lss-cine-camera.html The compairison picture of it is pretty amazing how small the GH4 looks!

Deleted.

I would think it has to be a bit different seeing how the GH5 is reading the Full Sensor, not cropped like the GH4?

Sort of HDR on Steroids! That video was a waste of 2 minutes of my life. And I am running out of minutes!

Not a new article, about 6 months old I found. Ineteresting I thought. Not like we are ever going to see one let alone use one. http://www.dvinfo.net/article/acquisition/thoughts-on-the-panavision-millenium-dxl.html

Hell I have spent a freeking fortune on Film cameras in my life I don't want to do that all over again with Video cameras. Plus hell I am running out of time in my life. I don't have the luxury to try 50 cameras. Not anymore. I am retired, I can't work overtime to buy toys. And if you have families you don't need to waste your money either. So I Want peoples opinion, their thoughts, none of us needs to waste time and money. We sure as heck are not all going to go out and buy the same cameras, but we can save some people the time on the duds. This place is one of the few places on the web you can ask Video related questions and get seasoned pros, damn smart amateurs that have used this stuff, that are not into just one brand, many have tired many brands and get honest good advice and opinions. Andrew has a great site here and we know it, and he knows it.

I am not making fun of anyone, we all are here to learn. If you don't give 2 shits, well we sure aren't going to debate, learn much being like that. No one on here that I know is rolling in the dough or they probably would not be on here if they were. I hope this forum is a learning experience, a place to see what others have tried, used, sold hated, liked. Even still have. There is no One camera. Even 60 million dollar films use Go Pros in them, BM cameras. They are throw away stuff for car chases, fire scenes etc. I want to see what works and what does not for people like us that we can afford... If you can get a Cine look out of a GH4 well show us how. Save us a shit pot full of cash. Looks damn good. Trailers are always a bit too choppy, scene cuts out the ass to judge footage with, but I do like it. Would have to see the normal footage. There is a reason we are now up to a GH5 coming out. The GH1 was a breakthrough camera and it has gotten better with every new version.

Ok I got my Popcorn, I am ready! Oh, and I bought some more Beer. Really Ready. Tell me why I am all wrong, might be, I can be convinced, well ok I can be I guess. Sort of in a good mood today, the sun finally shined, 60 degrees. Now I did not think of all the cameras that are damn good like the Canon 1DX mkII comes to mind that some of you have. So add the ones you think "Make the Grade" as they say, and deserve too. I am, you am, we are looking for a good camera we can afford that hits the mark, new or used. I am not saying it has to be cinematic as hell, just better than most stuff we have tried. I still have a Panasonic G7. I just can't sell it. For the money I can't get a better 4k. So I keep it. Not worth that much anyways. Takes damn good stills also. I recommend it. jonpais seems to love his Fuji now, never owned a modern one, old ones were great. Like Film ones Lol. So I am sure he has owned a ton of stuff in his time. So I trust he has a good eye for video.

I want to see the Cadence, Raw look, great Codec, along with ten other things or more that is required to get a cinematic look that I don't see from GH4 videos. These things are baked into the better cameras. It does not take much effort at all to get it out of a Arri, Red, Panasonic Varicam, a Sony F55. That is why they cost a ton of money. They have a secret sauce of sorts. But I have to admit this James Miller guy seems to have done some good stuff with the GH5, but do we really think Panasonic is going to give us the same look as a $45,000.00 Varicam camera they make has? Do we really expect Sony to make a new Sony A7xxx that is as good as a Sony F5, F55 for 3000 bucks? Sure a few people can make it look pretty good, but not 40 grand great. Magic Lantern is done doing their thing. Canon has threatened to sue their ass. They were hurting their C700, C300 mkII turf, and Canon gimped the hell out of the 5D mkIV video wise, and it will be around for probably 3 years more. Imagine that. Now like I said many of the older cameras that have that ability we can now sort of afford to buy now. I am not saying you just turn them on and it works, but it sure as hell is easier than trying to get it fro a GH4. I have been in and out of this business a Long time. Peons like us have Never been able to get that look ever until the last few years. You could not do it with film cameras unless you father was Donald Trump. Because 8mm looks like shit next to 16mm, that looks like shit next to super16, that looks like shit next to 35mm, that looks like shit next to Anamorphic wide screen, that looks like shit to 70mm wide screen. You get my point. Bigger IS better. And you could not really afford used Digital Broadcast equipment either. You might, a big might, afford a used camera but hell you could not afford the decks, switchers,hell even the tapes, monitors, on and on. That is why I got out of it for 25 years. And you can't really make a good living working for TV stations. The reason I quit being a videographer. I made fairly good money but the hours suck big time. Most News people make damn near minimum wage. That is why you see the Weatherperson of the month on TV stations. Now if you are making Porn Films, who gives a crap how the film looks, it is how the woman looks. We are not talking about Porn Films I hope. Even a GH4 would be overkill for that. And people have not really bashed the Sony FS700 output, that have bashed its form factor more than anything. And when it was new all the Sony components to make it work were crazy expensive. they still are in a sense. But you can buy the Odyssey 7Q, not that this is cheap either. I am not telling anyone on here not to buy a GH4, GH5, Sony A7xxx. Hell they are unimaginable cameras 4, 5 years ago. Great cameras for the masses! Just don't expect them to look like a Sony F55 or a Arri Alexa on the big screen.

Wow seems like you maybe in the right place at the right time to break into the big time. Hell go for it. You will regret it if you don't. Not many get That chance. It is more luck than skill to make it, we all know that.

LMAO. Fun thread! Oh I agree completely. If you don't have the money, you don't have the money. But if you have skill, or want to learn to be skilled, heck any camera gets the job done. You can bet your butt all these big movie names that make movies all started out on a 8mm cheap Sears film camera or the like. They did not buy a ArriFlex to start with! It takes time and skill to do this stuff. Very few ever go onto making a living do it. But it is a fun as hell, albeit expensive, but what hobby isn't, rewarding as hell thing you can create. But I am just saying people are selling the hell out of cameras We can buy now for 3k or less that some of them were over 10, 15 thousand bucks or more not 5, 6 years ago that made people, a lot of people counting cast and crew, a living. It is like a miracle that we can buy that old used stuff. It is a Miracle what Blackmagic makes for us. Just go out and buy these gifts and take advantage of it. That way you can't blame the camera, it is your lack of knowledge that is to blame, learn the camera and you are golden.

You would really like my brother. He collects guitars, dozens and dozens of them. But he likes to show me the cheapest ass guitar every made with the cheapest ass guitar amp ever made, and the sound that comes out of them is well, it is pretty awesome! Grungy as hell, punk rockish crap you just have to love. It sucks balls but it is great! You need to start collecting cheap band equipment. It is meant for you!!

I sort of have noticed that you are hands down the "tight ass from hell" on here! I hope if you are married, at least for a few more days, you might go out to lunch, go on a vacation, hell to the Mall and buy some stuff. It really helps in the long run. But you probably have money out the ass, and I am broke! Well I really can't remember Any film I have seen, that was shot on film, that I said, Wow that sucks at high ISO? But yeah I have said on here if a person had the money he, she should have a Sony A7s stuck in a bag with them at all times. Yes that sort of is true about the cameras we use on here. But my Piss everyone off reply stated some cameras that now we on here Can now afford to buy that have shot fims we have seen. And that had a cinematic look then and will now.

Boy, I am going to piss off a Lot of people on here , but I am afraid I have Never seen anything "cinematic" shot with a GH4, and I bet I will not with a GH5. Now a Sony F3, a BMPCC, the original Red One X, Canon C300, Sony FS700 4k, BMCC, Canon 5D mkIII with ML, but a turd to use, I am thinking cameras WE can afford used, I know there is more but you get the point. I can't even put Sony A7 series in there, Samsung NX1 either. More people pissed. These kind of cameras have a Digital look, plain and simple. I don't care what Lut you use, they still look Digital. Sure some colorist from hell from Hollywood can blend one in with a Arri, but we don't have that skill set, and if was that great they would not buy Red Weapons, and Arri Alexa XT's. Can the above cameras that are not "cinematic" looking shoot some killer stuff, well yes they can, but Cinematic, afraid not.

Very good reply. And your 1-4 order, I say is right on. Story is King.

I think in this day and age Gear matters a Hell of a lot because, just like your A7s, there is a lot of cameras that can be bought for less than 2000 bucks, that a skilled person can make a film, documentary, Band video that you can look back at 5 years from now and say damn, that is really not too bad. This crap where you use a piece of shit camera is just that, crap. If you want to do this stuff pony up 2k for a camera rigged and just do it. There is too many great used cameras for 2k to make excuses. You are wasting your friends, paid actors time, and yours with a friggin Canon T3 in this day and age. Make a commitment to do the best you can do gear wise, give up smoking, drinking, eating out ,and buy a camera that stands the test of time. OK, off my soap box LoL.

Well to me, that guy lost all credibility, when he sold the BMPCC and bought a freaking Canon T3. If you can't make damn near a feature film with a BMPCC you need to find a new hobby! Blackmagic gave us poor folk a gift of a lifetime with both the BMPCC and the BMCC. And this guy sells it and buys a God Damn cheap ass Canon!! What the Hell! We are talking ProRes HQ, and Raw! That is what the big boys use. And you can also do it for maybe 650 bucks for the BMPCC, to a grand for the BMCC. And have a beautiful, creamy output. Jesus what does this guy want?? Now he has a GH2, Oh boy that ought to work. Mpeg output.

Yes you have to have a external recorder to do it as far as I know. But it can do 4k up to 60p Raw, 1080p footage at 240fps, and super Slo Mo up to 960fps at lower resolutions. Now the really fast Slo Mo stuff is for short bursts. It is a beast in reality with a external recorder. Pretty much can cover anything you need to do for not a heck of a lot of money. Probably the most versatile cine camera ever made that mere mortals can afford now. But yeah, you would have to buy a Odyssey 7Q External Recorder to make it really work it's magic.