HockeyFan12

I agree that the K35s are overpriced, but I think they look great. Manchester by the Sea looks really good to me. The flares/coatings/onion bokeh etc. has a texture to it that I think the Samyangs lack. But I do think the Samyangs are just fine, excepting I had bad luck with the 24mm. It is funny how some "character lenses" are fetishized and others are hated on based on extremely similar characteristics, but I often find myself liking the look of movies shot on K35s.

I remember reading someone posting like this and upsetting people, but that sounds pretty cool to me. I get the frustration with being undercut, but on the low end you're building a reel more than you're trying to make a living imo. It takes some guts to just jump from unemployed to freelancing so I think that kind of thing makes sense where you ease in from your 9-5. One caveat is that people looking for a "deal" are always looking for a "deal." Higher paying clients are usually just better people to work for, but low pay work for friends or whatever I think is great. Free or near-free work can be cool because you do have the upper hand in that relationship since you're doing the favor. But I have gotten burned most on low pay jobs so it can be a tricky place to be. I sometimes think people who focus on the business aspect of things do better than those who focus on the art, and I have noticed that as I work more my work has gotten REALLY specialized whereas I started as a jack of all trades. Now I'm thinking of just getting a day job in that specialized area and continuing to freelance a bit to pick up extra money... but also to start over again doing my own thing (and hopefully making a little money at it).

Hi, looking for a tripod case for a two-stage system. I just got my tripod repaired and don't want to have it break again.... Would a case like this be appropriate for airline travel: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1382018-REG/miller_3514_lw_2_stage_softcase_for.html Or would I need one of these expensive flight cases? https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1030291-REG/skb_1skb_r4209w_roto_molded_tripod_case_with.html Are they considered oversize or do airlines accept them? Thanks!

I'm not sure if you're kidding, but I see nothing wrong with using a C700 for cat videos. I wonder if Roger Deakins and Janusz secretly shoot cat videos. I'd love to see them. Probably would be their most honest work. I bet most Red owners/cat owners are shooting cat videos. They'd be crazy not to.

Secondaries and moving the gain warmer or cooler can get you part way there. But there's no good way of correcting this. I definitely wouldn't shoot like this intentionally with the idea being you can fix it in post... unless you want a stylized look, in which case set your white balance in-between (4300K) and for some stuff that might look good. When I get the white balance totally wrong and am not shooting raw, I've found using the channel curves (blue curve in particular) works better than using lift/gamma gain. If you have any clips like this, upload them and we can take a look. With a lot of rotoscoping you might be able to make it work, but the way light bounces is so complicated it'll be difficult to completely correct under any circumstances. You can make it better... but very difficult to clean it up totally. If you haven't shot anything yet, and aren't going for a certain stylized look, just get it right on set. Maybe get some daylight LED light bulbs.

35-140mm f3.5 Soligor Macro I bought one for $14 off KEH and think I overpaid by about $14. My copy is hazy. Maybe it's not always this bad. Apparently it's parfocal!

They did. There wasn't a big announcement over it, but they released a FF version: Kind of cool. The big external recorder I imagine limits the usefulness... the C700 is already big. I think the new Arri Mini FF (though worse in low light, I expect) and Venice will be more attractive options. But I'd love to see a FF C300 MK III... can't imagine it would be affordable.

That depends on your definition of good. It would still be very very noisy in the shadows at 25,600 ISO. So if you underexpose, the image might be terrible. But if you expose carefully (or use noise reduction) it should be fine. The difficulty is most incident meters don't function in such low light scenarios, so you have to trust the camera's internal meter and your own experience with the camera. Imagine something similar to that except twice the sensor real estate. With noise reduction it looks good (to me), without it the image is too noisy (imo). What's deceptive is you can see the meter reads the scene as being a stop over, so in effect once this is printed down (graded) it's closer to 16,000 ISO. If you underexpose you'll be in a really bad place, though. That sensor gets magenta noise and banding pretty easily. Much better low light than most cinema cameras, but still not A7S level. The Gemini might also be worth considering. Again, it really depends on what you're shooting and how you're exposing the image. I'd feel confident at 25,600 ISO with that camera, but only if I knew I wasn't underexposing too much and if I knew I was going to use noise reduction in post. Why not the A7S? It's amazing in low light and much less expensive. Very respectable image, too, if you are careful and respect its limitations.

I think the FF is essentially the same sensor, only larger. So if you scale the image down to 4k, it might be about a stop cleaner than the C300 Mk II. If you crop it or look at it per-pixel, it should be the same. I guess it's better, but it depends how you look at it. I think the A7S is still cleaner than either camera at extreme ISOs, even if the image isn't as robust overall. This might be the very best option if you don't need 4k: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1187825-REG/canon_1002c002_me20f_sh_multi_purpose_camera.html/?ap=y&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhM_Vmpqm4QIVzlcNCh3QjARIEAkYASABEgJmN_D_BwE&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=Y Also consider that a fast lens makes a big difference. There are more f1.0 and faster lenses available for E mount than for EF mount. (Where there's just the 50mm f1.) With cinema cameras, there's less noise reduction and compression in the imaging pipeline than with most mirrorless cameras, so the image will be noisier but easier to clean up in post. I would recommend doing noise reduction in post. Neat Video and Dark Energy are probably the best options there but it takes some experience to learn to use Neat Video properly. I think the ME20F with a 50mm f1.0 EF lens would be the absolute best equipment available for extreme low light, but the A7S with one of the Chinese f0.95 lenses wouldn't be far behind. I don't think it's worth the difference in price. I suspect they're pretty close. But that's only at very extreme ISOs. At around 50,000-80,000 ISO and below, I think the C700 FF would have a better image than either (after some noise reduction). I guess we need to know what you have in mind to give a better answer. What focal length do you want to use? How fast is the subject moving? Are you okay shooting at 1/24 shutter? Are you okay with using noise reduction in post or is it something where noise reduction might not work well? I suspect the best bet is an A7S and a very fast lens.

I think it's who you know. I definitely can't afford them. I love the Varicam's image–my second favorite to the Alexa, probably. And technically the second best, too, imo, or arguably better if you favor resolution over highlight detail. But I still disagree about anamorphic. On the Alexa Mini you might be shooting 2.8k with them, but on the Varicam it's a 4:3 (or even 5:4) extraction of 4k... which is... you guessed it, 2.8k. Except the Alexa Mini covers the full coverage of the lens, whereas the Varicam is cropping substantially. Regardless, still a great image I'm sure. I love the Varicam's image and don't think there's anything better for the money. I also really liked the cinematography on Maniac, which it think was shot on Red with an in-between sized sensor.

They are the same sensor, but the larger the sensor the more the grain texture and "smooth" quality of the OLPF (or whatever it is that makes the Alexa feel a little more diffuse) are obscured. Similar to S35 having more "texture" than 65mm and 16mm having the most. I did like the look of the Revenant, though, and yes it was shot on a mix of A65 and Minis. I just think that the A65 can look sterile. It works for the Marvel movies, though, it just looks a bit more like Red to me. I also prefer S35 for cinema glass, but Panavision anamorphics aren't cheap to rent. I love the Varicam's image but is it 4:3 or 17:9? I'd think you'd prefer FF for the Panavisions (cropped on the sides of course) unless your S35 sensor were 4:3. I do love the look of those lenses. Aren't they PV mount or do they come in PL mount now?

The images are graded, which imo makes the difference in contrast less relevant. But I agree the night scene is where you can see the difference in DR and color linearity, elsewhere it's not as apparent. But if you look really carefully, the texture of the Alexa (imo) is smoother with a little more micro contrast, and I prefer that look. It's a little more organic and I don't think the LF and A65 have it as much. Just in terms of ergonomics, I wouldn't want to touch the Alexa Mini without a crew, though. I think for me a FF raw C300 Mk III would be a dream camera. But at a price I couldn't afford. I guess I find the C200 a bit too "sharp," same as most digital cameras, though. The FF C700 appears to be, too. But diffusion filters and vintage lenses are a quick/easy fix. I just love the S35 Alexa look I guess. But I agree it's a rental camera, and a rental camera for when you have a crew. And of course the price is high. Rumors of a 4k+ S35 Alexa are intriguing...

That's really interesting. I remember loving the look of the Revenant (not my favorite movie, but I loved the cinematography), but feeling that a lot of subsequent Alexa 65 shows were a little more clinical and boring. Bandersnatch I thought looked good, but might as well have been Red or something. There's a rumor that Arri uses a diffusion filter over their OLPF. It's not true. But if you look at this footage carefully (download it): You can see the C200 has more fine detail and the Arri has more sharpening (unsharp mask) and a "smoother look." (The Arri also has a much nicer noise texture, superior linearity in color over exposure, and 1.5 stops more highlight detail, which this comparison masks.) I'm trying out Tiffen's Digital Diffusion FX 1/2 filter to try to get a similar softening effect, but it's incredibly subtle. Obviously, that smooth/soft effect and the Alexa's "film like" noise texture would be reduced with the larger sensor. So I think the S35 sensor for whatever reason has this smooth look that the LF and A65 lack. They feel more clinical and more textureless. But I've only worked with the OG S35 and watched footage from the others. Granted, the others still look great and are perfect for as a Venice competitor (or for Netflix), but it's really interesting to read that Deakins prefers the S35. I do agree there's a lot more great cinema glass for S35, even if it's mostly very expensive, and that sensor has an organic "feel." But the opposite is sort of true on the affordable end of the spectrum: there's a real dearth of affordable fast wide glass for S35 and tons of it for FF. The only good options I can think of for S35 at consumer price points are the Sigma 18-35mm for a modern look, or for a vintage look the Olympus 21mm f2. I think there's a Rokinon 16mm f2, too. I found an Olympus 55mm thread wide angle adapter on a swap table... maybe it's a sign that I should get the 21mm and use the adapter on it. 14.7mm f2. :/ And that would look VERY "vintage." I almost see FF making more sense for consumer cameras than for pro cameras due to lens availability. Nikon's 24mm f2 AI is a weird looking lens–I personally love it. But it's neither that fast nor that wide. (Nor that sharp wide open.) On full frame, however, it feels like a decently sharp 16mm f1.2 that's full of character... Canon's new 20mm t1.5 cine lens would be pretty great on FF and is relatively affordable, too.

I think part of the price difference has to do with economies of scale. At the low end, it's mostly the housings that are different. The Xeens and CP2s I believe are optically identical (or very nearly optically identical) to still lenses that are about 1/4 the price. But the housings are huge and built for use with cinema equipment: big front diameter, big barrel for longer smooth focus throws. The glass is the same. Same deal with Canon's cinema primes and Sigma's, I think. At the very high end it's another story. Some incredible stuff there, even based on specs alone (24-290mm t2.8, lots of super fast wides). Those are HUGE in terms of glass and housing. Some of the character lenses are amazing in terms of look (Cooke S3s and anamorphics and super speeds in particular–weirdly the Cookes are tiny and old Zeiss lenses are pretty small, too). But if you're only after image quality, today's Sigma primes, for instance, hold up remarkably well against Master Primes or Angenieux zooms. The difference is there, but it's smaller than the difference between good and bad still lenses in my experience. I compared the 17-55mm Canon and the 15-40mm Angenieux and they could intercut okay, even if the Angenieux is better. But at the same stop, I'm not sure the Angenieux would be that much better than the 18-35mm Sigma. But the mechanics are very different... which the rehoused Sigmas try to address, but I'm not sure if they have cam focusing or not. Zooms have to be parfocal and lenses have to breathe less, too, so that's expensive to implement, sort of having the lens zoom a little as it focuses to counteract breathing, I guess. And, of course, it's rental gear vs consumer gear so just different markets. But I think the difference is more mechanics than optics. There have been a lot of rehoused still lenses (Nikon and Leica R largely) in use in cinema, even before the current ranges.

I was about to say the 24mm is not very good, but maybe I just had a bad sample. I found the 35mm and 85mm to be good. Very neutral. Never tried the others, or I think the 14mm I tried once and it had bad distortion but I hear it's sharp.

@kye, no that's totally applicable to me. "CAT VIDEO MM/DD/YYYY" describes a lot of my "personal work." I think that might be the better naming convention for a lot of my stuff. Uploading to YouTube like that is a smart idea. The only caveats I can imagine are that you can never truly delete anything that way, or there's that story about Myspace losing 12 years of music. You can't really choose if it gets deleted, I guess. Still, I do that with a lot of stuff on dropbox, always keeping essential files there, but of course have to pay monthly to keep that data online. @KnightsFan, tons of great advice, thank you. Are your tools OS X or Windows? One thing I didn't realize would be helpful but think would be, is including relevant information (client, project name, etc.) in the "comments" section of all the files correlated with a certain project. That way, it's searchable even if it's not in the file name, I believe. Batch modifying comments might be interesting. I'd rather not change file names in some instances, but I wouldn't mind adding comments. The flip side of me (perhaps) having more projects to organize than you is that most of them are a couple weeks of work from start to finish at most. So I can't relate to most of those concerns about years of footage existing together in one scene; even for longer-term projects, it's a few days of shooting and then pick ups. I did something long-term like that many years ago and it was awesome, though. Despite some continuity errors and changing hairstyles... What's the two-year project you're working on? If it involves Blender and Fusion it sounds cool... That might be the best advice of all. I try to archive footage and photos I shoot, but have no idea why I keep most of it. Been shooting a lot of raw video lately and I can fill up a few 256 GB cards in a day. Backing those up is not cheap.

Thanks for the detailed advice. Do you also organize by year? I’m trying to go through all my stuff, going way back, trying to organize even past work, so that might be a good idea for me… And then one folder for personal work and one for paid after year? And then projects in each? Then: preproduction (scripts, storyboards, reference), production (footage), post production (sound, vfx, color, etc.)... and so on... Do you organize by client or just include that in the name of the folder? What do you do for stock footage, plug ins, etc.? A separate directory entirely for that stuff? I'll sometimes clean install everything and it's nice to have that ready to go. Do you store other stuff like photos, music, etc. (I take photos and am starting to work more in Ableton) in the same drives as your film work? All my paid work is video atm... but my personal work is a hot mess. What do you do for version numbers and/or date for vfx or for design? For vfx do you organize project files by date, by shot, etc. Or just one project file per project? How do you version up? One issue is assets and workflows can be shared across vfx shots, or one client might refer to assets from a previous project for editorial, but do I copy those assets into both folders? What about stock footage and stock sound assets and fonts? What naming conventions do you use for vfx? What does one of the spreadsheets look like that you mentioned? Do you track hours, days worked, etc. and whether it’s been invoiced/paid/etc.? Where do you store invoices? Locally or Google Docs? I assume the project name in the spreadsheet correlates with the parent directory for the project? What do you do for dropbbox integration? I’m often rendering stuff out to deliver to clients and rendering straight to dropbox. But do I also save those files locally, too? The issue is then I’m required to have two copies of them on my SSD since my dropbox syncs to my SSD. I guess that’s not a big deal, I can selective sync at the end of the day. Hmm... I have this terrible habit where I work off my SSD (only 256GB!) then back everything up to a larger drive piecemeal. It’s… terrible. But essentially to me. So that makes this a bit harder. Or maybe easier in the future, but harder now, as projects span drives. For footage I just use the camera original file name. Do you change the name of footage or just project files, etc? I also don’t use proxy workflows often. I’ve been tempted, but usually just edit at a fractional resolution off camera original. Overall that seems like really good advice. I’m never going to be as organized as it sounds like you are, but that makes a lot of sense. The other issue is I have tons of unclassifiable junk: notes in notepad (scripts, to-do lists); screen grabs of stuff, cat videos, cat photos, random test shoots that don't even quality as personal work really (maybe they should, but that takes the fun out of a random test shoot).... knowing what to do with that is another challenge. The other question is do I just throw some stuff I shoot out? For test shoots and stuff, do you keep everything you shoot or delete some of it? Maybe I should devote an entirely separate drive to assorted photos and videos that I just shoot for fun with no plans to editor or publish.

Broad question, but how do people organize their projects? Paid and personal? By client? By date? Anyone have any advice here or links to good conventions? Any post sups out there?

Thanks, I appreciate it. Next time I'll at least watch the short first. And next time I write a screenplay I'll go hog wild.... then cut it way down.

I'm sorry, again. Is there a moderator who could delete my original post? I didn't realize how out of line this was. What I'm even more ashamed of is I still don't know what parts I would have left out. :/ I bumped into an old friend who, since I last saw him, had success in the film industry as a producer, and he asked that if I email him in the future, to be sure to keep it short. Out of respect for his accomplishments, I told him I'd be sure to. When I write such a long post here, I realize it's an insult to all of you in that I won't show you the same respect I promised him. But it wasn't my intention. In school I'd always try to write a lot, but there I was the one paying to have my writing looked at... I felt I was being generous by writing a lot–but it was the opposite dynamic. I apologize for being so selfish. If a mod can please delete my post, I would appreciate it.

Again, my apologies. I'm putting myself on time out for a while. I should have watched the short first; I ended up writing something more to myself, I think, than to Zach, and that's a disservice to him and to the forum, but I was just trying to share my enthusiasm for some directors who inspired me.

Heh, I taught myself to type at 130wpm to help with essays... I guess I never stopped. I was only a minute late for the appt! I watched the short since, though. You didn't need my essay at all, I think you answered your own question very well. My apology again for the rant.

I didn’t watch the short since I am in a rush to an appt. I’ll check it out later… But responding to the initial question, Imo, if you don’t have a particular story to tell (you do, but maybe your natural medium isn’t a screenplay), have a particular way of telling a story: •Watch Spielberg films and focus on how his camera placement and camera motion correspond to how characters feel. What is the emotional center of the scene? Where is the camera in relation to it? (Consider focal length: a CU isn't just a CU–it could be shot with a wide lens right in someone’s face or a telephoto lens from across the street.) How does emotion relate to what characters want? We get emotional about our needs... Focus on emotion and how Spielberg draws you into moments of wonder and drama, but provides distance on moments of tragedy or comedy through blocking and camera placement. Notice how he integrates the gags (whether CGI or practical) into the medium shot, but doesn’t rely too heavily on POV shots. He keeps you close to the characters, without making you "one" of them. He's very transparent and classical. He puts you in the world with his characters without directly putting you in their eyes. Watch how Saving Private Ryan’s opening puts you into the battle even before there’s a particular soldier with whom you’re aligned. What he’s doing is complex and subtle, and probably mostly intuitive. He uses POV shots, he just uses them differently from Hitchcock. So just do what feels right! •Watch Hitchcock films and focus on how his camera placement corresponds to what characters see. (Consider range of narration and plot vs story–what characters get the most POV shots and when do you know more or less than a character. The “master of suspense” is often aligning you closely with the protagonist to make you sympathetic… then giving you a more omniscient range of narration from time to time to create suspense. Read the “bomb under the table” quote about suspense vs surprise.) •Watch Fincher films and focus on how his camera placement corresponds to what characters know. Who is the protagonist of the story? Who is moving the story forward at any given time? Who knows the most information at any given time? What’s in the box? And why do we find out at the same time as Brad Pitt (instead of Fincher choosing suspense and telling us before hand)? Why does he choose surprise here? To me, the Fincher protagonist is whoever knows the most at any given time. I feel like Gone Girl and Seven change protagonists halfway through… or repeatedly... in that sense. I think Dan Harmon and David Fincher both like to focus on the smartest person in the room. No surprise, those guys are really smart lol. •Watch how Peter Jackson shoves the camera right up the face–generally with a wide angle lens–of whatever is scariest or grossest in a given scene. Why does he shock you and gross you out so well? •Watch how David Lynch taps into subconscious patterns, frequencies, loops, in story, visuals, and sound design. How does he get into your subconscious so well? His films, to me, are more similar to music and painting. More abstract. Read his “eye of the duck” quote and consider how he structures each scene around a particular detail, each movie around a particular scene, etc. etc. I think with him it’s very intuitive and abstract, but there is a repeatable process nonetheless. I just don’t think it works if you try too hard to emulate it and think about it. Doesn’t mean it isn’t worth thinking about at all... but if studying this stuff doesn't interest you, probably don't bother. Just think: “let me show you something.” What do you show and how? To whom? How do you see the world that’s different from how other people see the world? Who are those other people you want to share your vision with? Why? Try to meet them half way and show them in a way that’s personal to you, but accessible to them. That’s you see the world uniquely. That’s your voice. It’s your personality. Ultimately, part of this is a popularity contest. But you can choose your clique… and how true to be to yourself... Or if you know the story you want to tell, simply tell it, and the rest will evolve naturally. I suspect none of the people I mentioned above are laboring over the choices I mentioned. They’re simply acting intuitively, true to themselves. Be yourself, but be cognizant of your audience. Make them want to spend time with you, or show them something no one else can. I love Tim and Eric and Lars von Trier. Those guys aren’t making palatable content. But that’s the point. They’re agitators. If you're an agitator, agitate. I remember you mentioned before that your strength was visuals. That you were doing similar things to Kendy Ty? That might be even easier to get started with, but it’s a different trajectory than feature film director imo. (At first at least.) Maybe get into branded content, music videos, try to get a staff pick, etc. If your friends and you walk down the street snapping photos and yours are the most beautiful, that’s your voice and your strength right there! Translate it into videos and start posting them on Vimeo and hounding everyone you know to try to get a staff pick. Obviously connections matter, this is a social medium after all. Network. I hate networking... There are a million different avenues–festivals, YouTube, sneaking into some director’s office, etc. No one can help provide those specifics until you provide the specifics of what you want to do. And even then we’ll get it wrong. But it’s not too different from social media–why did you put this on Instagram vs 500 px? Why did you submit to Cannes rather than Sundance? I 100% appreciate the problems you’re struggling with. I have scripts that are too big for me to shoot on my own, and it’s hard for me to recruit enough people to produce them. But that has to be a part of the conversation, too. FIND people who like your stories. If they don’t like them, find out why–is your story bad or did you just find the wrong audience? Maybe it’s GREAT but they’re envious of it or disagree politically. Still a (potentially) bad collaborator, even if they're a good person and it's a good script. Maybe it needs work (mine do) and your friend is confused. Explain it to them until they get it, then incorporate those changes onto the page. The process of getting the film made starts with communicating your ideas to your first audience–your collaborators. The process ends with you communicating your ideas to a larger audience–your viewers. Build your audience slowly. Build your voice. Start small. And focus on the journey. That said, I struggle with the same stuff. It’s not easy. It’s why, for more ambitious projects, I’m focusing more and more on writing. Not my strength, but if the ideas aren’t there in the script, they’re going to be harder to get across in the final thing and I'm too busy now to devote my life to making weird magnum opuses. Sometimes I wonder how David Lynch got a huge crew together to make Eraserhead. That movie apparently had next to no script and it's bizarre, but this guy was so magnetic that he got people to spend five years filming it. And the movie is amazing. I would seriously doubt he would win any popularity contests based on his films, but here he is directing my favorite tv show. (Admittedly more a cult classic.) Be true to yourself. Act in good faith and with confidence and the two will reinforce each other and grow. Or if you cynically just want to be a director to say you’re a director, study Brett Ratner’s career. That's true to what that guy wanted. And it worked! And more than anything, be confident.

Thanks everyone! Your advice has been really helpful.

I love putting my name on things so I'm excited to have found a Brother label maker on sale at Staples. I want to label lenses etc. so if I have an assistant or something he or she can identify them, and so things don't get mixed up if I rent equipment. Does anyone have any advice for doing this? Should I include phone number in case someone is extremely honest and I lose something? Label cables, too? Color coding? Should I label the cases? SD cards? This looks fun: https://www.amazon.com/Unistar-Standard-Laminated-Compatible-Brother/dp/B01FJRURW4/ref=sxbs_sxwds-stvp?keywords=oem+brother+label+tape&pd_rd_i=B01FJRURW4&pd_rd_r=ab02dc4c-fb3e-4597-ac39-5963d91998e9&pd_rd_w=rd5q1&pd_rd_wg=kNil6&pf_rd_p=5c5ea0d7-2437-4d8a-88a7-ea6f32aeac11&pf_rd_r=EK74ADNXKYH35F8X0N57&qid=1552187252&s=gateway I'm not sure if I'm more interested in this as an art project or because it's practical and will help keep me organized, but at least I found another use for my camera and lenses.