HockeyFan12

I don’t know that much about the Cookes but have worked with them a bit, primarily in post. In my experience the S4is are an ideal combination of modern performance with nice rendering while the S2/S3s are pretty wild with a lot of strange aberrations but they look great.
I’m not entirely sure what he means in that video, but I think it’s a preference for slight barrel distortion. He’s expressed preferences for Cooke lenses over Leica lenses in the past because the Cookes have more distortion. That could be what’s going on here, too.
At 3:43 on the square grid you can see that the barrel distortion from the Cooke does in fact “bring the center of the image forward."
How does that have to do with a larger front element? I don't know.

I don’t know that much about the Cookes but have worked with them a bit, primarily in post. In my experience the S4is are an ideal combination of modern performance with nice rendering while the S2/S3s are pretty wild with a lot of strange aberrations but they look great.
I’m not entirely sure what he means in that video, but I think it’s a preference for slight barrel distortion. He’s expressed preferences for Cooke lenses over Leica lenses in the past because the Cookes have more distortion. That could be what’s going on here, too.
At 3:43 on the square grid you can see that the barrel distortion from the Cooke does in fact “bring the center of the image forward."
How does that have to do with a larger front element? I don't know.

I think it's all subjective. Fincher adds barrel distortion to get the anamorphic look in Mindhunter. Otherwise I've never heard of it, but it's not a crazy idea.
I wouldn't worry about it, though, these are relatively small differences. Adding it in post might mess with the texture of the image or soften it a bit too much, there's a reason Mindhunter is shot on 6k or 8k Red or whatever.
But it's an interesting idea. Overall I think the Xeen holds up really well in that comparison even as-is, but there's no reason not to try it if it looks good to you.
I do think lenses have different amounts of distortion at different focus distances but don't know enough about this to know if it would make a difference.

I don’t know that much about the Cookes but have worked with them a bit, primarily in post. In my experience the S4is are an ideal combination of modern performance with nice rendering while the S2/S3s are pretty wild with a lot of strange aberrations but they look great.
I’m not entirely sure what he means in that video, but I think it’s a preference for slight barrel distortion. He’s expressed preferences for Cooke lenses over Leica lenses in the past because the Cookes have more distortion. That could be what’s going on here, too.
At 3:43 on the square grid you can see that the barrel distortion from the Cooke does in fact “bring the center of the image forward."
How does that have to do with a larger front element? I don't know.

I don’t know that much about the Cookes but have worked with them a bit, primarily in post. In my experience the S4is are an ideal combination of modern performance with nice rendering while the S2/S3s are pretty wild with a lot of strange aberrations but they look great.
I’m not entirely sure what he means in that video, but I think it’s a preference for slight barrel distortion. He’s expressed preferences for Cooke lenses over Leica lenses in the past because the Cookes have more distortion. That could be what’s going on here, too.
At 3:43 on the square grid you can see that the barrel distortion from the Cooke does in fact “bring the center of the image forward."
How does that have to do with a larger front element? I don't know.

The C200 doesn't have any NR issues in RAW. I don't like the strong filtered MP4 output though. Color in C-Log 2(RAW) is fantastic. Much different beast though.

The S1 has the noise reduction and gamut related issues fixed but we S1H owners have to wait much longer probably because the RAW update isn't ready yet...

It's fine at 0 using this camera, there's just a tiny amount of noise exposing to the center.
The image looks thicker and there's the great looking roll-off when exposing this way.
Also since firmware 1.3 there's no more smear or even ghosting in darker areas.

Please don't sand it, it's a hack, not a fix.
The tolerances on the housing are very tight, If your iscorama is warped, the plastic body is not ideally concentric around the lens helical (which is brass to brass, so no warping there for sure). What you need to do is to adjust the smaller metal ring and the way it sits around the plastic body using three small grub screws, until it's perfectly concentric. Try tightening them quarter turn at a time. It's a game of balance, and time spent doing this depends on how bad the warping of the plastic is. Just play with those screws, spend 10, 15, 30 minutes if needed, quarter turn at a time. Loosen one screw and tighten two others to move the small metal ring in the opposite direction of where the traction happens.

Alternatively you can take a caliper, measure the body in the pace where traction occurs, and compare that diameter measurement to the perpendicular diameter of the oval of the body. If the difference is drastic, like 0.5mm or more, you can try to squeeze the plastic in the direction of bigger diameter, to alter the shape a bit. If iscorama was stored on the side it could be warped that way.

It sounds a bit barbaric to squeeze the plastic, but it's the issue some of my customers had and it help them. Just be gentle. One person measured the tolerance of their rama and the difference in diameters was 1.2mm which is crazy – that polymer really does not age well, plus if the lens was laying in a box on it's side for 50 years it shows too. Also Germans chose a material that simply cannot have good tolerances even in theory – I have several iscoramas, some have nameplates that are exactly 72mm, but some have it at 72.8, and some at 71.2  – this is crazy, and some of them don't even screw into standard metal filters, simply because they're too big.

Maxiscope was my attempt to fix this issue for good, as it's a full metal body that replaces plastic, so you don't have to rely on tolerances and issues of the plastic body anymore. 
Hope this helps.

It depends on the camera and camera settings (and what look you like) but imo diffusion filters are a key missing ingredient toward a more "organic" look, if that's what you're after. They add an extra layer beyond even using vintage lenses, and imo it's worth combining the two if you want a "cinematic" look rather than a technical one.
I think @Zach Goodwin2 proselytized extensively about them, and while I think he was using stronger grades perhaps than I settled on (don't really remember), I agree they have great value.
That said, most on this forum seem inclined toward sharpening video and generally going for a sharper image than I prefer personally. So it is a matter of taste. I like the Alexa, which is quite soft, and I really like the look of 16mm and late-90s films shot by Richardson and Kaminski, which make heavy use of promist, classic soft, and nets. I think JFK is a beautiful movie.
(And the Alexa is a weird camera. I'm convinced it has an optical diffusion filter in front of the OLPF similar to Tiffen digital diffusion but that the pipeline also applies a slight wide-radius unsharp mask. Which isn't crazy. Film's modulation transfer function curve can exceed 100% mtf and then it drops off to extinction more slowly than digital; so this approach could emulate that. And give the "3d" look people talk about while still making skin smooth. But this is conjecture.)
The issue with black promist (also with classic softs and Hollywood black magic) is that you can see "speckles" in the bokeh, which may or may not be desirable, and at very deep stops sometimes the black dots that mitigate the promist's natural halation come into focus. (Also you need a matte box if you want to use a 4x4 filter, so screw on filters might make more sense depending on if you want to keep your rig small... but 1/4 BPM has a good look. Surprisingly strong, though.)
I find these tests interesting:
 
 
Particularly the latter. It's amazing how close the C300 with 1/4 to 1/2 digital diffusion looks to the Alexa. Imo it's a big improvement, however subtle.
 

It might? I've used it to smooth out macro blocking before. Sometimes the "temporal smoothing" setting, when you set it to 5 frames, is able to reconstruct detail so you can push your footage further.

Neat Video (and some practice with Neat Video settings, it's got a lot of settings).
But it might also smooth out/get rid of macro blocking so then you need to export it again at a low bitrate.

Neat Video (and some practice with Neat Video settings, it's got a lot of settings).
But it might also smooth out/get rid of macro blocking so then you need to export it again at a low bitrate.

That's true, I guess I was generalizing.

I think Marvel movies (other than Iron Man) have a similar style of storytelling to recent Spielberg movies (and Transformers movies). Instead of there being a character arc for the protagonist and that being the focus of the story, there's an external threat and then some elite heroic force stands up to that threat and stops it (could be Iron Man standing up to Thanos, could be Lincoln standing up against slavery).
To that extent, these are movies about rejecting external change rather than they are about embracing personal change.
That kind of story appeals to me less. 
(Not that I'm advocating for either slavery or for Thanos.)
Even with older blockbusters like Armageddon where there is an external threat, it's about the "everyman" standing up to save the day when NASA can't. Or in Enemy of the State it's the individual vs the establishment–this is the trend in the 90s imo, populism. And there's usually an accompanying character arc. With recent Marvel movies, and recent Spielberg movies, and maybe just recent studio pictures in general.... it's the "elites" saving the everyman. And often the only arc is the everyman learning to embrace the "elites" while they expel whatever outside force threatens the everyman...
But I also agree about MCU being extremely well made... I dunno, structurally it reminds me more of tv, which it basically is. Or sports–watching your team trounce the other team.
But credit where it's due–you'd expect MCU fans to pile on Scorsese and vice versa, but it seems the discourse has been civil and intelligent. I used to think the appeal of MCU was watching your team beat up the other team. Maybe it's more complex than that and MCU fans are more sophisticated, and ironically it's Scorsese positing an elitist us vs them framework here.

Neat Video.

My guess:
Paint out light sources.
Track the background.
Add smoke elements (normal transfer mode I’m guessing), adjust levels/blur/etc. 
Position/add fire elements, change to screen or add transfer mode. Adjust levels/blur.
Roto foreground.
Add embers/sparks.
Maybe add haze, foreground smoke, etc.
Color correct to add orange tint.
(And of course track the camera motion so the elements follow it. Or that whole thing could be a still with shake added in post.)

I think those will work if they're bright enough.
The only thing the gaffer said that I think is worth considering is you might also want a constant (non-flickering) dim orange source that's very soft/ambient or else it will look too high contrast and fake and also try to make sure the flickering feels a little random/offset. But that depends on the lights you're using. If it looks good as is it's fine. And fog/haze is good but consider adding it in post in addition or instead or else the bright areas will clump around the light sources. And be careful of front lighting smoke, can wash out the frame.
Shoot some tests maybe but I think you'll make it work. Also maybe download a high quality iPhone app and then add in compression artifacts etc. in post for the vfx shots imo.

I’ve used this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKEv02ALtNY
A gaffer I worked with recommends mixing the magic gadgets with a light that’s always turned on (once the "fire" starts) but dimmed way down. If it’s just the magic gadget it will look too obviously like a single pulsing source. You can add a few magic gadgets at different strengths and different speeds or with orange/yellow gels of different color/intensity.
Fire is somewhere around 1800K-2500K I think. Tungsten lights are closer to 2900K so you can use orange gels to get it more orange. Or dimmed down tungsten bulbs are more orange already. But gels are most flexible in my experience. You can use a regular dimmer or one like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Yescom-Variable-Controller-Settings-Hydroponics/dp/B00U3LD1WA/ref=asc_df_B00U3LD1WA/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198107334619&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8937789165355064762&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001876&hvtargid=pla-351845451838&psc=1
Or use a few of these mixed with one tungsten source with a gel or tungsten balanced LED with a gel, and have that source be soft (the "ambience" from the fire) or even bounced:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1437657-REG/luxli_orc_viola_m2_5_rgbaw_led_light.html/%3Fkw%3DLUORCVIOLAM2%26BI%3D225%26ap%3Dy%26smp%3Dy%26lsft%3DBI:514
On a bigger budget, the magic gadget is a better choice imo. But not too different.
Of course you have to plan and time it all up. Coordinate the effect on set with what's going on in post (in your head and then in post). A heat haze effect helps, too. Video Copilot has a pretty good one and it's cheap.
I'd be wary mixing real flames and fake. Difficult to match the levels or control them. And you're working with real flames. But if you can pull it off, that might provide the most realistic effect. In my experience, if flames are the light source, they're really going to blow out so sometimes it's easier just to add them all in post even if it doesn't look 100% real. The flames are going to be a lot brighter than the rest of the scene, which will be underexposed, and that's tricky to expose correctly but if you add all the flames in post and use power windows on faces and whatnot it's not so bad imo.
Fog elements help, too.
Use screen or add transfer mode for the flames imo. That reference vid is comped pretty well imo and the elements look good from that vendor.
Shoot and comp tests if you're unsure.

I’ve used this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKEv02ALtNY
A gaffer I worked with recommends mixing the magic gadgets with a light that’s always turned on (once the "fire" starts) but dimmed way down. If it’s just the magic gadget it will look too obviously like a single pulsing source. You can add a few magic gadgets at different strengths and different speeds or with orange/yellow gels of different color/intensity.
Fire is somewhere around 1800K-2500K I think. Tungsten lights are closer to 2900K so you can use orange gels to get it more orange. Or dimmed down tungsten bulbs are more orange already. But gels are most flexible in my experience. You can use a regular dimmer or one like this:
https://www.amazon.com/Yescom-Variable-Controller-Settings-Hydroponics/dp/B00U3LD1WA/ref=asc_df_B00U3LD1WA/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=198107334619&hvpos=1o1&hvnetw=g&hvrand=8937789165355064762&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9001876&hvtargid=pla-351845451838&psc=1
Or use a few of these mixed with one tungsten source with a gel or tungsten balanced LED with a gel, and have that source be soft (the "ambience" from the fire) or even bounced:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1437657-REG/luxli_orc_viola_m2_5_rgbaw_led_light.html/%3Fkw%3DLUORCVIOLAM2%26BI%3D225%26ap%3Dy%26smp%3Dy%26lsft%3DBI:514
On a bigger budget, the magic gadget is a better choice imo. But not too different.
Of course you have to plan and time it all up. Coordinate the effect on set with what's going on in post (in your head and then in post). A heat haze effect helps, too. Video Copilot has a pretty good one and it's cheap.
I'd be wary mixing real flames and fake. Difficult to match the levels or control them. And you're working with real flames. But if you can pull it off, that might provide the most realistic effect. In my experience, if flames are the light source, they're really going to blow out so sometimes it's easier just to add them all in post even if it doesn't look 100% real. The flames are going to be a lot brighter than the rest of the scene, which will be underexposed, and that's tricky to expose correctly but if you add all the flames in post and use power windows on faces and whatnot it's not so bad imo.
Fog elements help, too.
Use screen or add transfer mode for the flames imo. That reference vid is comped pretty well imo and the elements look good from that vendor.
Shoot and comp tests if you're unsure.

I've liked Canon and Panasonic in the past but if this has A9 AF and Venice color it's game over.

I've liked Canon and Panasonic in the past but if this has A9 AF and Venice color it's game over.

mentally ill = funny
name a hilarious comedian who is 100% sane...?
zach, im crazy too, believe me. its not easy. but im also funny af and u gotta think thats part of it, u kno?
dont worry man, youre in GREAT company...!
 

4000 very clean, barely any noise at all.
12,800 is fine. Better than the A7S II
25,600 is ok.
If all camera reviews had to wait for the A7S III, you would not be getting any reviews at all.
 

I'm the same way and I get into terrible creative partnerships as a result, but it sounds like you're in a good one!
It could have just been someone with the same name, I never sent the suitcase back. But I did google the address and the house there is worth >$4 million and it's in the right part of town so maybe... ? 

I think this is good advice.
I'm not one to ask personally, but in every case I can think of where someone I know "made it," they made something and through a combination of people they know irl and/or online platforms (major festivals, YouTube, even small local or online festivals but run by people with industry clout) or even just saying to their boss "hey I wrote this will you read it" they got what they needed to get a meeting or representation and took it from there. But the content always came first and it seems there was always an intermediate step. I think...
Anyway, getting into a major festival can get you representation pretty easily.
You can try hiring a press agent, too, or getting someone you know to pull strings. Or hiring someone to handle festival entries.
Just my opinion of course. 
This sounds great. I thought your last short was more interesting than a lot of Netflix content and I love King of Comedy so I would watch it. But I would worry about the short/pilot before worrying about the series. (Also, record good sound.)
It sounds like it might be a good fit at one of the production companies Adult Swim hires out, and I think those companies work with Netflix and others, too. I submitted a short to one of them about a decade ago, worked with people at another, and flunked a job interview at a third lol. But they all seem fun.
Generally, I think Netflix is going to production companies rather than to individuals so I'd focus on the journey rather than the destination. Of course, if I actually knew how to succeed at this I probably wouldn't be posting here. Or maybe not.
If you're in LA that does make it easier. I met a showrunner in Trader Joe's and now he has an HBO show in development but I didn't have anything to show him. ? I also bought a suitcase at Hollywood goodwill and it had the home address of an A-list showrunner and instructions to return it to him, I think. Maybe I should have... with a pilot script. (This actually happened.)
Another tip someone told me: people like to be appreciated (but it's nice when it's in good faith and not just fawning). You can generally hunt down anyone's email address, and if you can't you aren't trying hard enough. Look for someone you genuinely would like to work for, and try to work for them. Then show them your stuff. This is harder if you want to do everything entirely on your own, which is sort of my deal and it sounds like you might be that way, too, in which case festivals seem like a better bet.
Channel 101 used to be a really good scene, but it seems like the well has run dry even though their current content is still fun. It feels a little like an imitation of itself to me, but I really like some of the current shows anyway.