kye

7 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Maybe they think it wouldn't be cinematic or something.

OMG - run!  Stop down the aperture!  Shorten the shutter speed!  Disable all slow-motion!  Bang up the ISO!  

Must.  Protect.  Camera.  From.  .  .  .  Vloggers!

12 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

//OFF TOPIC ON//

I know this isn't about equipment but now you've brought this lens into it I have to pipe up

It really is a great lens (especially with the extra reach from the clear zoom) but who the fuck at Sony thinks its a good idea when the camera goes into sleep that it reverts the lens back out to 18mm when you wake the camera up again??!!!

Fair enough it would do this when you switch the camera off completely but, man, I was using it yesterday to do some product shots and I wanted to beat it to death.

//OFF TOPIC OFF//

Odd, there's normally an option for these things.

I have a Panasonic point-and-shoot with some ridiculous zoom (20X or 30X) and wow was it annoying before I found the "resume zoom on wake" option

53 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

do not worry, I usually bite too! Just did actually!

Are you saying I'm a troll?

Genuine question - it's hard to understand how other people see your behaviour.

28 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

Funny you mentioned it, I was just reading that we will have a huge Banksy expo in my city.

Sorry for interfering, but this is one of the greatest films of the century!

This is really a mockumentary, the character is created by Banksy himself and mocks the whole artistic world and the "gallery" driven artistic market. He was creating the whole project a few years before release, gossips/articles/art/websites e.t.c

How shallow is the DOF on this film, by the way?!? 

I was reading about it after posting and apparently there is a lot of confusion.  The wikipedia page for Mr Brainwash (link) has some interesting snippets in it.

Quote

However, it also adds that "it is impossible to prove whether his latest incarnation, Mr. Brainwash, is sincere. The film suggests that Guetta's artistic alter ego is largely a creation of Banksy, a notion Guetta doesn't refute." Guetta told the paper: "In the end, I became [Banksy's] biggest work of art."

Which seems to suggest that it's all fake, however then there is this:

Quote

Mr Brainwash made his major auction debut on May 14, 2010 at Phillips. The piece, a massive canvas, was given a pre-auction estimate of $50,000–70,000. It showed a Charlie Chaplincharacter with paint can and roller in hand. The background of the work was adorned with the artist's Madonna and Heart image, set in an urban/street environment.[30]

The London Fall 2010 Phillips Contemporary Art Sale was Brainwash's second appearance in auction, this time with two works, described as spray and metallic paint, acrylic and paper collage on canvas.[31] The smaller of the two measures 106.7 x 106.7 cm (42 x 42 inches) and shows Kate Moss amongst heavy brush strokes and splatters of red, pink, and white paint all amongst a gold background. The larger one, measuring 162.6 x 121.9 cm (64 x 48 inches), shows Albert Einstein in front of a graffiti adorned wall. The works sold for about $67,000 and $120,000, almost three times their estimates.

and this:

Quote

An episode of the Morgan Spurlock-produced documentary series A Day in the Life follows Guetta for a day. He is shown preparing for a large Los Angeles show. In the episode he reveals that all of his work since his 2008 debut has been completed with a team of graphic designers.

and this:

Quote

In 2009, when Madonna was set to release her greatest hits compilation, "Celebration", she asked Mr. Brainwash to design the cover. He designed 15 different covers for the wide release, singles, DVDs and special edition vinyl.[19] Mr. Brainwash also collaborated with Madonna for her Hard Candy Fitness in Toronto. The Hard Candy Fitness opening featured the live onsite creation of an 11 by 30 foot Madonna mural, designed by Mr. Brainwash.

What we have is a real person, who was featured as a real artist in a fake documentary by a real artist, whose status as an artist is challenged and the real person won't say he is an artist. So that seems pretty straight-forward, he's not an artist.  He reveals in a real documentary that all his work since his debut has been completed by a team of graphic designers.

Definitely not an artist then.

Unfortunately, since his debut, apparently he's done the following:

• Designed album covers for Madonna
• Designed art to promote Rock The Vote
• Done work for Michael Jackson
• Might have been part of the official promotion for Red Hot Chilli Peppers
• Directed a video for Coke featuring Avicii
• Did work for Coachella
• "created a one-of-a-kind Mercedes-Benz 2015 GLA" for Mercedes, whatever the hell that means
• Appeared in performances

and has sold art worth something like $250K.  

Does making art, selling art, or appearing as an artist make you an artist?  Who knows, but I just love that even by reading the wikipedia page you're still not sure what the hell is going on, and I think that's the whole point.  The questions aren't if he's an artist, how much Banksy did, if the documentary is real or not.  The questions are: What is art?  What makes something valuable?  Do we judge people by their actions or by what they say (or don't say)?

My take-away impression from the docs was that it was kind of like a prank on the art world that they fell for, but I think that the prank is actually on humanity, because there just aren't answers to these questions.

And how shallow was the DOF on that film?  About right for a documentary - nothing to do with the work I create

2 hours ago, TurboRat said:

If you gonna do it for the money, you won't get too far.

Did you ever watch a documentary called Exit Through the Gift Shop?

It was a film made by Banksy about the guy who was making a documentary about him.  It is a ouroboros mind-fuck and spectacular in every way.  The reason that I mention it is that the guy wanted to be as famous as Banksy but without doing any of the work or getting good at art, so he did a bunch of paintings for a huge show and they were terrible, but he talked himself into thinking he was great, and then because he sunk so much money into it people believed he must be great and so his work sold for heaps of money.  In the end you're kind of left wondering WTF happened, what is good and what isn't, and how the F can anyone tell anyway.

Going for the money doesn't always end badly!

53 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

I thought this wasn't about equipment?!?

It's not.  

Somehow @webrunner5 has added YouTubers saying that shallow DOF means 'cinematic' with cinema lenses are only F2.8 or slower + Philip Bloom is on YT and come up with owning a 0.95 lens means I'm drinking cordial or something.

I think I got bitten by a troll.

14 minutes ago, Towd said:

Haha, may we all make Michael Bay money some day in our career.

But I posted the Michael Bay example maybe to be a little provocative to the art house crowd.  Saying you hate Bay is a bit like saying you hate Trump-- it's always a safe response.  (Please nobody attack me.  I promise I didn't vote for the guy.  I'm just saying...)

Seriously though, I find that I look for "Bayhem" when I'm editing a project.  Is there a shot with more parallax in the foreground?  Or a shot with more motion?  Maybe a whip pan or some other movement.  Those are the shots I seem to gravitate to, so I think that the Bayhem style is something that I'm looking for.  I certainly can't recreate the complexity of some of his shots.  Just that panning background on a telephoto lens with a circular dolly track that he does is technically very hard to recreate on a rushed shoot.  (I've tried with limited success.)  But, I think when even Werner Herzog is acknowledging the style, there is something there worth studying.

It depends on what you're trying to achieve.  Bayhem is a style of art, but so are the styles of films like Russian Ark, or how Nicholas Cage acts.

It doesn't mean we have to like them, or emulate them, or that any style is any better or worse than any other.  Don't be afraid to admit you like a particular style.  Study it, practice it, celebrate it, and own it.  and then get paid for it

There's a whole debate around selling out vs being a genuine artist that I think people misunderstand.  If you compromise your art just to make money then that's unfortunate, but who are we to judge.  And if you happen to make art that lots of people like, then there's nothing wrong with that at all.

46 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

I agree with pretty much everything you said, but i especially agree with this.

I have no doubt fairlight and fusion will continue to improve. A fully integrated, single post production application would be absolutely heavenly for quick turn around and light work. It will be interesting to see if they can make it flexible and stable enough over the next few versions.

That sound software you screenshotted looks like the kind of intuitive UI that i think thay fairlight lacks. One glance and i understand how it works. But yeah it would get cluttered very quickly with large projects.

I think they will continue to improve too in terms of features, but possibly not in terms of the architecture.  Things like the UI will probably require a significant re-write, but that might be to our advantage because if they work on it they'd have to re-write it completely, which means that they might completely re-design it too.  My vote would be to enable everything to be docked and undocked so you can move everything around.

One thing that I think modern computers are severely lacking in is UI innovation.  We have GFX cards that can render a 4K virtual universe in real-time but the windowing that we use on normal applications hasn't had a single innovation (except multiple desktops) since 1988!  
What about having dynamic modes where the windows get bigger when in the middle and when you're not using them they settle on the sides of the screen like thumbnails?  You can't argue that there isn't spare screen realestate on a 24inch UHD display when you're working in a word processor..  

We give Canon shit for not delivering the full capability of their hardware - todays UI design is the equivalent of getting 240p from a 1DXmk3!

Anyway UI rant over.

In terms of adding complexity to Fairlight, that will be a long time coming I think.  If you operate in the physical world then the mixing desk is still a good way to run a studio, and considering that things like recording an orchestra aren't going to change, any time soon at least, that mindset of how it works will be with us for a long time.

But you're right that they could add a modular UI like that to simulate the patch bay that normally sits along side a mixer, which is required as soon as you have more effects modules than you can have wired in at and one time.

1 hour ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I have some of my shorts on my youtube thebrothersthre3

Cool shorts.

In terms of your style, I'm not really that sure.  I don't watch enough horror or action to be able to see past the standard techniques and shots to see what is more uniquely yours.

Anyone else have a more familiar eye?

11 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

@kye this forum is not the same since you've landed. Kudos for your posting : )

Thanks mate!

11 minutes ago, Emanuel said:

My vote for a new mod! : -)

Please no!!

Thanks @OliKMIA - I hadn't factored in 5K vs 4K, but as you say, it's splitting hairs, and the whole thing is downscaled anyway.  Especially for me considering I don't do green-screen, I deliberately use softer lenses and love the film-look of the output, and I typically just publish 1080p to YT.   I'd trade-off resolution for bit-depth and DR any day of the week.

I guess the whole point of this thread was to understand if there were any hidden down-sides I didn't know about.  Apart from shifting the ETC mode from production to post-production I don't really see any issues for me.

Yay!

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

Yeah, but the one built into Resolve lacks a lot of features and it's really slow. It hangs and freezes doing simple comps, which run fine in the standalone version. At least that's my experience so far. There are more features in standalone Fusion than Resolve builtin, and even more in the paid version, some of which are looking really tempting--specifically the tracking features. Also I did some 4096x4096 comps in Fusion recently, and since the free version maxes out at UHD I actually had to export as four 2K images and then stitch them in ffmpeg. It's an easy workaround but it's kind of annoying.

Interesting.  I didn't realise that they were keeping Fusion as a standalone product, although that might not be the long-term direction.

I know that in terms of integrating or modifying software significantly, certain bits are a lot easier to get working than other bits.  Maybe the roadmap is to gradually add in the bits that Resolve hasn't enabled yet, or maybe not, who knows

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

Huh, interesting discussion

Yeah.  I found it interesting the BM guy searched the forum to see how many times it was mentioned, so maybe they do try and respond to users.  I kind of got the impression that they do, but also they have a strong strategy - integrating an NLE, Fairlight, and now Fusion into Resolve wouldn't have been them responding to forum users!

It was also interesting the BM guy said that it wasn't necessary, and someone countered by pointing out that 8K support also wasn't necessary..  touché!

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

So far I've found fewer bugs in Resolve than Premiere, but I do avoid the "bleeding edge" features like Fairlight and Fusion. Back when Fairlight first was integrated, I had one issue crop up in the rendered audio file, but that was a few versions ago. Hopefully that's fixed. Still, not being able to reliably hear what you're working on makes it annoying.

Agreed.  I noticed a huge difference in crashing between 12.5 and 14, so I think someone really pushed for it to get more reliable.  It went from crashing about every 20 minutes to maybe every 8 hours of use for me, so that's significant.

One thing I can kind of sense is that a lot of the niggling bugs have been around for many versions, so I think they might be harder to get to issues more to do with mashing things together instead of just isolated in one module or whatever.  Things like the "I get no audio" bug which seems to be fixed by anything from muting and unmuting in each panel to changing system output device or messing around with the database, and has been with us since v12.5 and probably before that even.

1 hour ago, KnightsFan said:

True. But it's all so big and blocky. Like if I pop open my effects tab it takes up 1/4 of my screen, so I have to close it back down just to see what I'm doing. I'm constantly finding myself adjusting the windows. I believe that you still can't freely undock or rearrange panels except like the color scopes only--which makes it really hard to take advantage of dual screens.

Re: the rest of your post... I agree, and one reason I like Reaper so much is that it's scalable. If I want to record a sound, I open Reaper and hit record. If I want to EQ a single clip, it's a couple of clicks. If I need to mix for a surreal narrative project in both 2.0 and 5.1, with crazy effects, and dialog and ambient being piped through a vocoder and all kinds of crazy stuff, it scales really well. In Fairlight you've got to dive through menus to set up sends, the UI honestly feels very uncreative and inefficient. It just doesn't want to do things that it wasn't consciously designed to do by the developers.

I agree it's big and blocky.  I alternate between using it on a 13" laptop and using the same laptop with a UHD display.  It's better on the larger display, but it's definitely not as customisable as would be ideal.  

I think this is due to the heritage of it being around for a long time, like most other long-lived software packages look old and inflexible.  In a sense this is something that also runs through the film industry too, so much of the processes, techniques, terminology, etc is rooted in out-of-date technologies or previous limitations that are no longer present.  This is really a symptom of what happens when you take a challenge (make a film) break it up into the steps (shoot, develop, edit, test-screen, picture lock, sound, colour timing, distribute) and then when the technology changes you update each part individually but not the way that it was broken up in the first place.  The things that the film-industry talks about as being revolutionary seem completely ridiculous when viewed from an outside perspective, like the director working with the colourist to create a LUT that was used on-set to preview the look as it's shot, or being able to abandon the idea of the picture-lock by being open to making changes to the edit if the audio mixing discovers any improvements that could be made.
These are obvious no-brainer things if you haven't gotten used to those limitations over time.

In terms of Fairlight I think that's the case too.  Having a mixing desk approach made sense when audio equipment was all analogue, but it's always seemed restrictive to me.  Here's a screenshot of the free modular software-only tracker that I was writing music with about 20-years ago.

Every blue box was an audio generator and every orange one was an effect.  Every arrow had a volume control and every module had an unlimited number of inputs.  Every module could be opened up and adjusted with sliders for each parameter.  Every slider could be automated.  Anyone could develop new modules and share as .DLL files.  
As computers got more powerful you could have more modules.  We got to the point where it became difficult to work with because you couldn't adjust the size of the boxes on the screen and so you'd have stacks of boxes on top of each other.  I used to write tracks like the above where there was a separate effects chain for every instrument, except things like compressors where you want them to drive the whole mix.  My friend used to connect every module to every other module just to see what they sounded like, and he'd get these amazing textures and tones.  He was a big fan of Sonic Youth and apart from writing electronic music with me he also used to play guitar and integrate samples from that, and later on we get into glitch and heavy sampling.  

I think I would have gone insane if I'd been trying to write music limited to the architecture of a mixing desk, or couldn't just right-click and bring up a new module..  what do you mean every reverb instance costs $1000?????

18 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

We Ain't taking pictures of trees, we are taking movies of people. Using red in painting, yep you done drank the Kool Aide. PT Barnum was right. ?

Screw PT Barnum.  I think you're drinking the Trump /MAGA Kool Aide - that both the past is better than the present, and that somehow we can get there by copying random aspects of it regardless of causality.. or logic

1 hour ago, Mako Sports said:

Personally I'm an event shooter that specializes in sports with the occasional documentary. I prefer a sharp clinical look as it tends to look more true life. If I shot short films or was interested in the so called "cinematic" look maybe i'd go for a softer/organic look. 

Makes sense.  Any technique is valid as long as it supports the end goal.

15 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Philip Bloom seems to do ok using tele lenses. He lives and dies with a 70-200mm, 100-400mm lens. Fast lenses wide open tend to be the worse lenses ever made. A camera like the PK4 with no optical corrections is a recipe for disaster using a 0.95 lens on it unless you are going for a 60's psychedelic look LoL. Even high dollar Cine lenses aren't really that fast. How many really fast lenses were ever made 30, 40, 50 years ago when movies were the I think the best?

I am not knocking new technology, but all these fast lenses are I think unessential, especially with better low light ability. Sure maybe using a BMPCC with a s16 sensor, but s35, FF not so much. Hell even m4/3 buy a speedbooster and use a half affordable decently made lens on it. Cheaper than all these fast ass gimped lenses.

I think you done drank the Kool Aide all those fast Chinese lens makers are pushing. They look more like fun house mirrors than quality glass. Now I must admit the clickless aperture and longer focus throws are nice but.. Just some food for thought. Plus you will look just like everyone else does with them dumb lenses. You Really want to take videos of your wife, kids with a wonky looking lens, really?? ?

Now you're just shit stirring!  So much to comment on.

So I'll shit-stir back...  

• "He lives and dies with a 70-200mm, 100-400mm lens."
  Have you ever filmed anything inside a house?  If you had, you'll realise that a 70mm+ lens is only good for videos where the voice-over starts with "Has acne haunted you all your life?"
• "Philip Bloom seems to do ok using tele lenses"
  No he doesn't.  He loves getting shallow DOF with his camera tests, which are exclusively shot at long focal lengths because he's shooting people (or cats) without their permission.  When he makes a real film he uses whatever focal lengths are appropriate, and for the B-roll goes to great pains to choose angles where there's foreground, like putting the camera on the ground or peeking out from behind foliage or posts or whatever.
• "but all these fast lenses are I think unessential"
  Using red in painting is unessential. Film-making is unessential.  So are clothes, ice-cream, and sports of any kind.  If we're going to live like that then let's all just live in caves - you go first
• "30, 40, 50 years ago when movies were the I think the best"
  You're right, I got it all wrong!  It was the lenses that made cinema of the 70s/80s/90s greater, not the availability of cheap VFX, the 2-second attention span of modern society, or the fact that the movie on the big screen is competing with Instagram, Twitter and instant messaging 
• "Kool Aide all those fast Chinese lens makers are pushing" // "wonky looking lens"
  Rent some expensive fast glass - you'll be surprised!  Any lens gets sharp when stopped down two stops, that means f0.95 lens gets sharp at f1.9, when typical lenses are still blurrier than when they just woke up   Besides, don't people think the modern look is too sharp?  I know you do - you think that camera lenses were what made classic cinema better than Michael Bay, in which case, lenses being a little soft when wide open is just what the doctor ordered

Besides, are you aware of the changes in DOF with focal length?  If I have a 50mm lens at f4 and want to have the same DOF with a 24mm lens, to match a shot, you know you need faster than f1 for the same DOF at the same distance, right?  What about if I need to add a bit of 3D to a super-wide landscape shot?  

19 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

It says the thread doesnt exist...

Odd, I clicked on the link from this thread and it worked.  I also pasted it into a browser that wasn't logged in as me on there and it worked too.

I'll paste it again - maybe this works? https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=47367

19 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

Yeah, I use resolve as my primary editor and of course for color correction. I got the full version of that, too, mainly for noise reduction. Certainly worth the price just for editing and color. At this point im strongly considering getting a fusion license when we hit post on my next project. Blackmagic really has phenomenal software. However, I tried using fairlight a few times, and really disliked it. I regularly have issues with the audio cutting out while editing, or popping, or suddenly getting really quiet for a few seconds. So at this point i dont trust fairlight for real use. The only time ive ever used it outside of testing was to add some compression to an audio track for a rough cut render. Just that once.

I suppose like many DAWs, fairlight probably gets a lot of mileage out of plugins like the RX pack. I think that reaper has a better approach in that regard, though, where there is no "builtin" EQ or dynamics, its all plugins. Not only does it come with a phenomenal library, its just as easy to use a 3rd party EQ as it is to use reaper's EQ. Fairlight seems to have built in stuff just sitting there taking up screen space even if you dont need it. Instead of memorizing lots of little functions, once you understand the broad design philosophy in reaper, you can figure out the rest intuitively, which was the opposite of my experience with fairlight.

No need to buy a Fusion license, it's built into Resolve now with v15, so you get that with your existing license.

The downside to Resolve is bugs.  They're moving so fast to add features (or integrate entire packages!) that they have some lingering bugs and others that crop up randomly.  Id say Fairlight audio issues are with the interface, and wouldn't render out from the Deliver page, but I could be wrong.  I've been using it since v12.5 and have experienced a few annoying issues, but nothing in the exported files.

I watched the two Fairlight guides that BM recently released (there weren't any good free resources before that) (link, link) but TBH I didn't see anything in there that was surprising to me.  I've used a few DAWs before, and am familiar with the traditional architecture of how a mixing desk works as well as how a normal mix and a mastering session would be constructed, so I guess that's why it seems pretty straight-forward.  I kind of was surprised that there wasn't more to it, because when I first heard about it over a decade ago having a multi-track recorder with infinite channels and built in effects, dynamics, para EQ, etc would have been pretty mind-blowing.

It's also worth noting that the screen layout of Resolve is quite flexible and you can expand, contract, minimise and hide panels as you like, but the controls to do those things aren't immediately obvious so there is a belief out there that you can't customise it at all.

19 minutes ago, KnightsFan said:

I suppose like many DAWs, fairlight probably gets a lot of mileage out of plugins like the RX pack. I think that reaper has a better approach in that regard, though, where there is no "builtin" EQ or dynamics, its all plugins. Not only does it come with a phenomenal library, its just as easy to use a 3rd party EQ as it is to use reaper's EQ. Fairlight seems to have built in stuff just sitting there taking up screen space even if you dont need it. Instead of memorizing lots of little functions, once you understand the broad design philosophy in reaper, you can figure out the rest intuitively, which was the opposite of my experience with fairlight.

I guess it depends on how you work and what your preferences are.  If you're just interested in the audio equivalent of the high-quality but generic and bland Canon 2.8 zooms then Fairlight is probably fine.  If you're the kind of person who has 28 different parametric EQ plugins because each has a different tone then obviously it's not a good match.  

In audio there is a spectrum that people work across, running from absolutely pristine audio reproduction at one end (where the goal is to get the audio from the room published with as little damage as possible) to creative mayhem at the other (where no-one cares what went into the microphones as long as the final product is great).  Music writing typically extends further into the more drastic end of processing than straight film audio, so that's going to push the tools in different directions.

For me, I'm more interested in taking the sounds I've recorded, cleaning them up if required (thus buying these izotope plugins), combining them in a way that supports the visuals, both in a literal sense for dialogue, but also in an emotional sense with ambience, volume automations, music, etc, and then getting them exported.  Good audio should be effortless and not draw attention to itself - so that's what I tend to use the tools for.  Having one set of generic tools (EQ, dynamics, and volume automations) works just fine in that sense as I'm not really creating, I'm editing.  And of course, having it integrated makes a huge difference, as my brain can't deal with picture-lock before I start thinking about audio!

There's nothing wrong with either - if you're working on a Hollywood blockbuster then you'll want to be doing sound design in a much more creative way, adding loads of foley and FX to really push the output in the right direction.  

18 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Short films, action movies are probably my favorite. I shoot live events as well (where I actually make money?)

Cool.  Any examples you can post?

3 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I am not sure what my personal style is. I think it would change depending on the project. I'll say I generally like to see what's going on really well so I often prefur static or slowly moving wide shots. I also enjoy slow motion as it can really let you see something that wouldn't otherwise be notice able or too quick to be noticed. 

What kind of projects do you do?

4 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Just two examples but in general the entire show is generally shot this way and I don't really see a point to it. IMHO if the audience is concentrating more on the background than the subject it's probably because your story isn't engaging not because you used long DOF. To me having a shallow DOF tends to be more distracting than anything else as it looks unnatural. Just my opinion and stylistic preferance. That said I always buy fast lenses. A 1.4 lens is usually sharper stopped down to 2.8 than a 2.8 lens wide open.

Yeah, if there's no point to it then that's when it's distracting and lowers the quality of the output rather than adding to it.

Faster lenses are sharper, although we can apply the same logic - are you chasing sharpness because it adds to the dramatic context of the project, or just because "it's cool"?  There's a long history of photographers pursuing sharpness because if you want to make a large print and have it seem lifelike then resolution matters.  In moving images I don't think that this automatically translates.

5 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

I agree. Its interesting because when all these YouTubers use the term cinematic + shallow DOF together, yet the last couple of times I went to the movies its always been a deep Dof.

Using shallow DOF for no reason is just as bad as using deep DOF for no reason in my book.  Of course, big budget productions have the luxury of making sure the background is relevant to the plot, so having a deeper DOF doesn't automatically add in unrelated elements to a storyline.

1 hour ago, Towd said:

I'm always pushing to cut one more frame from a shot while still telling the story, or adding something else into a frame to heighten visual interest.  Maybe I fear the ability of the modern audience to click away, check their email, or start browsing the web.  I find whenever I'm watching a film and a character stares wistfully off into the sunset, I'm going to the timebar to check how much more of the film is left.  I really don't want that to happen on any of my work, so I'm constantly fighting it.

I don't know if that is a style, but it's something I'm constantly aware of while cutting a project.

Love it or hate it, this guy seems to have figured out a formula that's made him quite wealthy.  Maybe that is what I aspire to...  ?

 

Do you aspire to the "more is more" style of Michael Bay, or the wealth of Michael Bay?

Either one is fine - no judgements from me - just curious if the style is the goal, or a means to an end.

18 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Yeah but you don't Have to buy a fast lens to get shallow DOF. You can use a mid telephoto lens or a tele one that is f4 and do the same if you have the space to get back. Hell of a lot cheaper. I like the compression look a lot. It really forces you to look at the subject more so than the background. It is like tunnel vision. I mean you can't, and shouldn't use it all the time but there are Tons of cheap lenses like that out there to buy.

True, but only being able to get shallow DOF outside or in a warehouse isn't always practical.

Buying lenses is kind of like buying a set of paints.  If you buy a slow lens then you're missing some colours, and you might want to use them sometimes.  Of course, if you buy a fast lens and get all the colours, you'd be stupid to only use the extra colours you don't get with a slower lens.  

Buy all the colours and then use the ones that make the best painting.

4 hours ago, KnightsFan said:

To be fair though you are supposed to pay for reaper after the trial period. It doesnt lock you out, but i discourage taking advantagr of that. i am happy to pay $60 if only to show my support for non intrusive software--and it also happens to be a killer program that I use daily.

@kye tongue in cheek aside, reaper is signifcantly better than fairlight in my experience. It has a cleaner interface that is much friendlier to limited screensize and dual monitor setups, in my opinion. Also resolve still doesnt support 44.1 khz exports i think? Usually when i do a music video, the audio file is 44.1 and not only does resolve/fairlight force a conversion, it is a bad sounding conversion.

It does look like a good program.

You're right that Resolve doesn't support non-48khz outputs yet.  This thread was interesting: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=47367

Of course, if you compare $399 for Fairlight with $60 for Reaper then it doesn't look so good, but there's more to Resolve than just the Fairlight page

Thanks @Towd - that's useful.  

I didn't think about the ETC mode being unavailable.  I guess you can just crop in post, although that would be a slight shift in how I work so I'd have to get used to it.  

In terms of being too sharp, I'm curing that with lenses - like many people do.  Although if you're delivering in 1080 I'm not sure how much that really matters, I haven't done much testing to see, and for me it doesn't matter that much for my projects.

I love the combination of small form-factor, image quality, and that it's a workhorse not a diva.  Very few cameras can claim all three.

3 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Some interesting observations I noticed when watching Iron Fist and than Raiders of the Lost Ark later in the day (sick as a dog so catching up on TV time)

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CaVXeTZasg7zrElwlLomWrBTXMKSj2T6/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_fGiVkt_mT1eOf9dIBmLmYwdH4zikIhl/view?usp=sharing


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cw6kkbYIVOUmPNRecZbjoqR8Ygg_crUo/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l4BvqK-0baVAKDy2jAF3uXAiwDQKgDbs/view?usp=sharing

Much shallower DOF, regardless of daylight or night shows. 




Iron Fist is definitely less traditional in how its shot. They seem to prefer to blow the highlights when it comes to things like windows. I don't see this with the other Netflix Marvel shows.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cox43pZ-DQj7TYwOm3edFKawZgXZCbbH/view?usp=sharing

You could be right, but those shots don't seem to be good examples to prove your point.

The first two shots are two-person shots and in both the closer person is similarly out-of-focus, it's just that the Indy shot has a closer background and the Iron shot is further away.  The background isn't important in either shot, so how obscured they are doesn't matter.

In the second two single shots, what matters is how related the character is meant to be to the background.  The Indy shot shows the character in the setting more strongly, whereas the Iron shot shows the character disconnected from the setting, perhaps for dramatic reason and perhaps not.

The thing about DOF discussions is that saying "DOF is great and looks lovely" or "DOF is a cheat and is overused and was never used in cinema" are both completely missing the main point of DOF, and that is that it is an artistic device used by the film-maker to control the scene.  If you want to isolate a subject then you blur the background, which is true from an optical perspective but also from a dramatic perspective.  They famously used very shallow DOF in The Handmaidens Tale to give it a claustrophobic sense, in accordance with the dramatic context, and the fact you couldn't see that far or get a wider perspective was also in line with the dramatic context of the world of the main character.  
DOF should be used to communicate and reinforce the dramatic context of the story.

I make home videos as a hobbyist and it seems like I'm the only one here talking like fast lenses are a tool rather than a toy.

It's like people think that buying a fast lens means you have to use it wide open the whole time.....

6 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

A GH5S + a light gimbal (I’ve had my eye on Icecam Vision 3; anyone have experience with it?) is a killer combo that does almost everything well except maybe extreme DOF and if you need that then a speedbooster will fix it.

In my opinion you can’t beat the versatility of a good m4/3 camera for video like the GH5(s) series. Almost any lens can be adapted to it. It offers a great balance between DOF and lightness/size of lenses and, when you need it, can be adapted to get the look you want. Every time.

panasonic would do well to recognize this and deliver the GH6 as a full fledged video monster. Forget the photo quality. The G9 is better in that regard. 

What compromises for video do you think they're making to get good photo quality?  What does the G9 do better for photographs?

What about timelapses?

9 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

Most people say they come to me for my style. I don’t even know what that style is, I’m trying to find out. 

Anyone kind enough to tell me? 

www.videoink.co.uk

Here are some of my impressions...

• Simple compositions, often with a single subject centred in the frame
• Lots of closeups, often with shallow DoF, both for product shots but also headshots
• Camera movement combined with speed-changes, often synced to the music

Another thing I noticed is that your style is kind of 'loose'.  What I mean is that a less relaxed / more up-tight style would only do movement with fixed sliders and tripods, wouldn't be comfortable getting as close to people, wouldn't use different speeds on the same shot, wouldn't use the fancier transitions as editing punctuation, wouldn't use the odd fisheye shot.  It's like you've taken a more boring style and turned it up a couple of notches, but haven't abandoned the fundamentals.

Nice work!

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Reaper for instance is so cheap everyone should have it!

I don't know...  I only own Resolve and now these $10 plugins.  

Considering that Resolve includes Fairlight, the $60 for Reaper seems almost outlandish!

I say this partly tongue--in-cheek, but the value for money benchmark keeps getting higher and higher