kye

In that case then maybe a gimbal is a good choice. It fits the feel, if you mount the camera with a quick-release plate and then balance it then it should stay balanced and be quick to setup, and perhaps most importantly, before you take a big step you can strap it to your chest somehow, put it into locked mode, and then take the step and have full use of both hands when doing those tricky bits of a climb. I think I've seen people strap a gimbal to the front strap on a backpack so maybe that might work.

I think two of the biggest challenges that we face in photography, and which starts fights, are: People make different kinds of films. I just started another thread with a great BTS from an adventure film-maker who shoots everything 60p so he has flexibility in post with which things he can use for slow-motion. This makes sense for adventure film-making, but would be stupid in narrative work where slow-motion plays very little part. If I had a zillion dollars then the best camera for narrative work might be an Alexa, but if I'm going to jump out of a plane it sure wouldn't be (extreme example) but also if you're running a studio for a game-show then the Alexa is probably also not the best choice. People see differently and have different tastes. Lots of the talk about colour science is about taste, but some people can't see colour that well and don't care. Some people are much more sensitive to motion and care about the 180 degree shutter, whereas others are sticklers for blowing highlights and chase high DR cameras with low noise and >8-bit outputs to ensure that the foreground looks good and the highlights aren't clipped. Most of the "this camera/lens/mic/preamp/tripod/etc is better" arguments are really people judging equipment according to their individual sensory perceptions, their workflow priorities, and their shooting situations and then thinking other people are stupid because other people have different perceptions / workflows / and shooting situations and evaluate differently. I think the solution is for people to be more curious. If someone says something you disagree with, instead of disagreeing with them, try asking them why they disagree, or how they came to that conclusion. This is how to cool a situation and learn something as well.

Levi Allen, who is freelance filmmaker and a solo adventure documentary maker, has made a bunch of high quality films and made a great BTS video talking about production and equipment and various other things. This series is about people walking slack-lines (the alternative to tight-ropes!) and there's some pretty crazy content. Here are the first five episodes, which IMHO are just spectacular: and here is the BTS where he talks about the equipment he used (watch the above before the BTS because it's got heaps of spoilers) Highlights include: Almost everything shot with the Panasonic G7 in Cine-D He got the Sony A6300 for slow-motion and he thought the AF would mean he could ask others for help as second shooters, but the screen was so rubbish in daylight and it kept overheating that it wasn't much use He shot 4K because he wanted to sell it for more A few shots (mainly the time lapses?) were shot on the A7S but because it wasn't 4K it didn't get used much Drone was Phantom 3 Pro in the Natural profile Rode Video Mic Pro for run-n-gun Rode NTG-3 for interviews Kessler crane motorised slider He used MF primes, mainly the Rokinon 35mm MF He used shots from his iPhone because they were needed for the story Other interesting thoughts: He now owns a GH5 and shoots everything in 60p now so he has flexibility to slow things down in post He worked out the profiles to use in his cameras by doing a bunch of camera tests and looking at the output and choosing the settings He hates PP "Premier Pro is garbage" and edits in FCPX, and "if I was working on just films I would probably be editing in Resolve, but because of my internet workflow and things like that I've been editing exclusively in Final Cut and it's made my doc work amazing" He also then gives a commentary of Episode 4 talking about storytelling and creative aspects, production challenges and being a solo shooter and BTS, as well as equipment. There's a ton of great info in there so I'd encourage you to watch the full BTS for more.

Ouch.. sorry to hear about your friend. They used to say that the only things you can count on are death and taxes, but they've added another one now - change. We certainly do live in the times of Adapt or Perish. I have a CS background but have generalised as my career progressed, and I now work across the whole organisation, which means primarily working with people. Human behaviour and organisational behaviour do change, but it's pretty slow, and I do get a kick out of it once in a while, so I'm probably better off than the majority of people, even though most of it is pounding my forehead against granite. CS/IS is a difficult area to be in because if you're technical you're having to learn new tech constantly. In comparison to non-technical careers it's like jogging to stand still, running to progress, and sprinting to have a good career. My dad was the head engineer of desktop computers in a large educational institution (10,000+ students, 6+ campuses) and when he retired one of the things that he said to me was "I don't think I have another operating system in me". He went through all the major OS's from CPM to DOS to Windows 7 in his career and that constant burn was one of the reasons that made me move away from the technical side of things. I tell the people that I mentor that if they want to get a pay rise they either have to go up, out, or deep. "Up" is getting promoted through the ranks, which means that you stop doing whatever it was you were good at and change careers into management, which is a completely separate skillset, and which is why most managers are incompetent. "Out" is starting your own business and either consulting or doing some kind of contract work, which means you get paid more than before for the same work, but you've taken on all the risk of not having any work and earning nothing. "Deep" is becoming very knowledgable about a very specific thing, you will get paid a lot because your knowledge is rare, but you have to keep up-to-date and if you happened to be the worlds most knowledgable person about fax machines or steam engines or whatever then bad luck because you bet your whole career on the wrong tech.

The older I get the more I realise that people are mostly fuelled by their irrational insecurities and emotional baggage. I've also realised that people make most of the decisions in their lives (especially major ones) with almost no knowledge whatsoever. Think about buying a house for example - it's the largest investment that most people will ever make, but look at how many people got it so wrong in the US. Same goes with investing in the stock market - I'm not aware of even one economist that predicted the GFC correctly and that's what they do for a living. People are completely rubbish at picking a life partner, look at divorce rates, and those are the ones that aren't still stuck in awful situations by religion, cultural pressures, or economic factors. The general populace are so miserable overall with their life choices that a huge percentage are on some kind of anti-depressant medication. I could go on.... So, if people live their lives with judgement so impaired that they get major investment decisions wrong, choose the wrong partners, can't create happiness in their lives, and then don't even decide to get therapy but opt for medication instead, why would you expect that they will be able to somehow transcend all that and become informed, rational, and articulate people when it comes to cameras? The other factor in this whole thing is that the photography industry is undergoing massive change. Most people don't adapt well to change, and those that are resisting are competing with everyone else for the traditional type of work that they're used to doing which there is less and less of. I think this is the main reason that many photographers are bitter and angry all the time. If you hang out in communities related to industries that are expanding, or where the typical person is new to the field and not clinging to the past then the overall attitude of people is likely to be very different.

How big is the Ronin S when packed down? In my mind that's the largest and most difficult item to include in a carry-on. Unless the Ronin rides checked but gets strapped to the outside of the bag when you're on set? If you take that out of the requirements for being inside the bag then a larger but normal camera bag would probably work well.

That KEH.com site doesn't look that great. It doesn't show you photos of the actual product you're buying, and refers you to the condition rating and the notes section for details on the actual one you'd be buying. This page here lists four lenses, one is Excellent Plus, two are Excellent, and one Bargain, but for the bargain one there are no notes! The description of Bargain says "glass may have marks or blemishes but should not effect picture quality", at least according to the intern who is opening the packages in the mailroom.. I'm guessing that if you're in the US you'd just buy it and return it if there are issues? It looks a bit different once you've paid import duties, made international phonecalls to get a return authorisation, and waited around all day for their couriers (who will only give you a 12-hour window for pickup/delivery and charge a fee if you were in the bathroom when they knocked and they have to come out a second time). Oh, to live in shoppers paradise, instead of Australia where the cost of shipping often doubles the price I'll have to create a eBay notification for the 2.8 version

Shooting ratios are highly personal and I think related to the personality of the director as well as the other factors. When my sister was in film school I helped on a number of sets and some directors loved horror and paid more attention to the fake blood than they did to the actors delivering dialog - I even saw a set where the actors messed up a take by saying their lines kind of wrong and wanted to go again but the director over-ruled them! When my sister directed we often went to take 20, and there was one scene where a guy was delivering a 20s monologue and although we got a usable take around take 4, it was something like take 17 when he delivered the performance that ended up taking pride of place on his showreel. My sister was interested in authentic and powerful drama through the quality of acting, and IIRC she'd rehearsed the script with the actors beforehand and changed awkward lines and optimised it before production, so although I think she was physically capable of making a film with 3:1 ratio, there was no way it was ever going to happen. @Dan Wake if you're set on making a feature and don't want to make short films beforehand, then consider making a single scene from the film as a trial run. That way you can trial the cast, crew, all the tech, and the entire workflow before you're betting the whole budget on it. If all goes well then you can take the opportunity to optimise your setup and processes etc and can use the footage in the final film. If it doesn't go well then you can make the required changes before going into production again. It does mean that you have to plan two productions instead of one, but in all likelihood the lessons from the first shoot will help you so much when you're doing the second that they will more than pay for themselves. Also, if by making the short you discover that your budget for the feature was inadequate then you can use the short to raise funding for the feature as you'll have shown you are capable of completing something and the investors will be able to have a taste of what they'll get at the end, which is more than most films are able to show potential investors.

I have used this type of setup forever and it works if you have a smaller amount of gear, but I wouldn't recommend it for @Kisaha. It has many advantages and I prefer it over a dedicated camera bag, but as you say, it's not easy to pull out equipment. I also doubt there would be a suitable insert for the gear required.

I agree with @KnightsFan about the practicalities of the different pieces of equipment, but I'm wondering what aesthetic you're interested in creating? Gimbals eliminate all shake to the point of creating the feel of a disconnected flying perspective. This might be right if you're trying to make something look beautiful, but if you're interested in a POV where it's about the difficulty of the climb and you can hear the climber breathing heavily, boots crunching over rocks, maybe loose rocks falling over the edge, etc, then a gimbal would be a terrible choice and you'd want something that showed the movement of each step, and each little slip. Start with the desired aesthetic and work backwards, only then compromise on practical grounds if you have to.

What kind of shots are you thinking of getting? There's a huge difference between a rig that you can stop and film people hiking (shoulder-rig perhaps) and a rig where you can film while also moving with the group over difficult terrain.. also, how much setup time do you anticipate having? A glidecam might take a few minutes to balance every time you wanted to take a shot, whereas others would only take seconds.

Do you mean the Nikon 80-200mm AF-D f4.5-5.6? The 2.8 version looks like they start at around $500! My dad dug up his collection and the 250mm he remembered is actually a 500mm, so way too long for practical use on crop sensor, and not to mention it's about a foot long! I'm still entertaining the idea of a nice zoom, just because they're so flexible, and a 70-200 would be both shorter and longer than the 135mm prime, so would be hugely more flexible to use.

Nice short! My theory is that the latter leads to the former.. The camera is a workhorse and we probably see footage from it all the time without knowing it. Considering how much of what we see is shot on the high end cine cameras from ARRI / RED / Canon / Sony / etc footage from a $2k camera not standing out is a pretty big achievement.

Excellent point! @Dan Wake is this your first feature? or are you gearing for a career in post-production? The stats on people who try to make a feature film without first having made several short films are pretty dire - most don't know what they're getting themselves into and the project is never finished.

LOL.. I'e seen a few versions of that box and having the sensors when it opens detect if there's a hand nearby is great - makes it look like it has real personality! I'm guessing you'll be moving to Resolve after your current project then? ???

The newest version of Resolve (that I haven't upgraded to yet) has a visual keyboard shortcut configuring tool that might be useful for that.

When I was seriously considering the A7III and GH5 and trying to understand the lens options etc, I PM'd with @jonpais about his experiences and he was really helpful and wrote me quite a few long and informative messages. This despite he and I seriously butting heads a few times in the general forum. I don't claim to know him, but I can see that he has a lot to offer - unfortunately other factors got in the way.

Remember that you can always buy more drive space if a project ends up being larger than expected. Worth noting is that RAW comes in different flavours and I suspect there is very little difference between them in the real world. People talk about Prores HQ being good enough for most projects, and considering the difference between 272MB/s and 117MB/s you might end up shooting RAW 3:1 or 4:1. You're looking at some serious drive space though - 4K RAW 3:1 at 30:1 shooting ratio for a 90 minute film is still 20TB. That's just the source media - you will also need to render proxies to edit with, and various other assets.

I spoke to my dad and it turns out he has Minolta 135mm and 250mm fixed primes, which he'll be putting in the post and sending to me. Win!! He can't remember which versions, but he said that at the time they were better than the most common ones that people had. I asked about how good they were optically and his answer was very interesting, he said that he couldn't really tell me because he only ever used them to take photos of things very far away, and at those distances atmospheric disturbances were the biggest challenge, not lens sharpness or film grain. Anyway, we'll see when they arrive. I'm managing my expectations though. I suspect that lenses were made to be good enough for the resolution of the best film stocks and probably no more. If we take a FF lens and then crop into it 2x for the MFT mode, and 1.4x more for the ETC mode, and if that is 4K video which is 8.3MP, that means I'm viewing the lens with the equivalent scrutiny of 65MP. There is hot debate around what the resolution of film is, but most estimates are below that figure, so I'm anticipating that they will probably be a little soft! Of course, I'm only using the middle of the lens, which is where it is the best, but 65MP might still be a stretch.. ???

I sympathise. More than once have I decided to solve a problem, done the research, and found the thread on the BM forums where I asked the exact question a few months prior. Or found the answer, gone into Resolve to map the function to a hotkey and discovered I'd already done it! I've said before that learning Resolve is like learning to fly to space shuttle. Probably a good idea would be to make a set of notes for yourself, perhaps organised by each page, of hotkeys / menu functions / etc that you use, then next time referring and adding to it. I say this as advice as much for myself as for anyone else.. lol ???

Most camera tests are more influenced by how accurate the focusing of the lenses is, or how similar the shots are (true A/B comparisons require you to point the cameras at the exact same thing under the exact same lighting - something most reviewers don't understand!). You want to do normal tests and also stress-tests. Trees blowing in the wind is a good stress-test. I designed a torture test by making a 4K video file with 3 frames of completely different photographs, exporting it as Prores and playing it on repeat, then setting the camera to a very short shutter-speed and framing up the monitor. Codecs normally do well when frames are similar to the previous ones, but do badly when frames are very different. This test absolutely destroys some cameras and others hold up very nicely. It's a total exaggeration but gives useful information if you don't have a tree handy. It's also 100% repeatable between cameras so is a valid test. My advice is to test things properly, make your decisions, then move on to making real content

We spend a lot of time here talking about different systems, but remember to take into account the practicalities of actually owning multiple systems. Fuji and Canon both have nice colours, but they don't have the same colours, so there would be work in post to match them, especially in scenes like the wedding ceremony where I imagine you've got a multi-camera setup and are cutting between them frequently in the final edit. There's also the advantages of having compatible lenses, media, etc. Unless you knew that you were always going to use the C100 with the wide, and the Fuji always with the long lens, but I suspect that's not the case.

@KnightsFan is right, but to re-emphasise, this isn't a hardware problem. When you're rendering video, it doesn't need to happen in real-time. I frequently export projects at anything down to 1 frame-per-second, and the HDD, CPU, GPU, etc all just chug along at whatever speeds they can manage and eventually the export is complete. YouTubers often talk about rendering out their 10-minute videos taking an hour.

People tend to transcode to Prores HQ or DNxHD HQX files as proxy media, often depending on what platform they're on (PCs can't make Prores files IIRC), but my research didn't turn up any differences in quality between the two formats, so use whichever you like. If you want way too much information about proxy formats, here you go.... https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/15/choose-the-right-codec/ https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/50-intermediate-codecs-compared/ The second link shows the bitrates of the various codecs and you'll see that Prores HQ and DNxHD HQX are very similar, but note that DNxHD HQ is 8-bit vs DNxHD HQX is 10-bit, and this will likely make a difference so is worth checking if you go the DNxHD route. With all things, when you make a compressed copy of something you only degrade the quality. However with high quality codecs like these the degradation will be minimal and likely not a factor in the end result. As you say, this is about story and storytelling, and I think that the ability to edit with smooth playback will add more to the storytelling than the very slight degradation of the image will detract from it.

Not that I know of. IIRC Resolve has some built-in tools for backing up databases and otherwise managing them, but creating one per project seems like a neat and tidy kind of approach. I'd suggest a bit of googling to just check it's not got some unknown issues - Resolve can be a bit like that sometimes. This process makes sense. Copying the whole card/cards to the SSD array, editing it there (likely with directories for music, SFX, exports and other project files), and then backing up that whole directory structure to your archive drives when you're done seems good. If you want to revisit the project once it's been moved from SSD array is actually not that hard, as Resolve has a great function for relinking source media. If you go to the media pool, highlight all of your offline clips, right-click and choose the option Re-link Source Media (or similar) it will ask you which directory to look in. If you point it to your source project directory it can look through the whole directory structure and find all the files. I use this function all the time and it works really well. If you just needed to render out a new export, or make a couple of small changes to the grade or whatever then you may find that working off the slow archive drives is quite functional. One thing I'm not clear on (and am still working out for myself) is the pros and cons of archiving completed projects. My current approach has been to delete the optimised media and render cache files (via the Playback? menu in Resolve) and then renaming the project "ARCHIVED <project name>" in the database so I know I've deleted them. Otherwise you gradually fill your SSDs with cache files (stored in a non-human-readable directory structure), like I did. This means I have a database with all my past projects in it and can revisit them whenever I want to, re-linking to the source media as I described above. However, Resolves project archiving feature might be better for you. It appears that it copies/moves (?) the whole project, all the source media, optimised media and render cache files to a drive. From reading the section "Archiving and Restoring Projects" on or around page 76 of the Resolve Manual it seems like the directory structure is non-human-readable and to re-access the project you'd have to restore the project, probably copying/moving all the media once again, which is a large overhead. If that's true it would also be a PITA if you wanted to look at the source media from that project (eg, if you were making a showreel) or quickly re-export with slightly different settings. I shoot home and travel videos of my family, so I copy all my footage to a directory structure based on a /YEAR/YYYY-MM-DD <event or location>/ naming convention, which contains all the video and photos I take with any of my cameras, and I often want to include footage in multiple projects, for example a trip video, a year-in-review video, etc. So having my footage all locked away by Resolve in archives wouldn't suit how I work. I've re-written this post a few times as I fact-checked and learned more during writing it so hopefully that makes sense! ???