barefoot_dp

If you're balancing with natural sunlight, using Daylight LED's will be easiest since you likely won't need any gels.

I've shot a bit in hospitals and we always use an Aputure C300d in combination with two LED panels; 300d to bounce light off a wall/roof and give the whole room some bright ambience, one 1x1 LED panel with a soft-box as a key light, and the other 1x1 LED as either a rim light or background accent as required.

Make sure you consider what their theatre lamps are balanced at (not the ceiling lights, but the one on the boom arm that the surgeons can move around), and what want them to look like in the scene (ie: either daylight/white like all the other lights, or tungsten to highlight the area) that will help you decide if you want to use them as a practical or augment them with your own lights (something like a Dedo does the trick).

Are you a regular poster at DVX user or was it your first post there? They have a new members section which you have to post in first before you get full posting priveliges. It's designed to weed out spam bots or people who don't basic read instructions.

I'm not sure about the F1 example, but I've worked on the broadcast for an international sporting event series where Red cinema cameras are integrated into the broadcast. There's essentially two camera teams working side by side. 

Broadcast cameras (including specialty slow-mo cameras) cover all the action & interviews for the live stream.

Red cameras get better quality coverage for heat highlights/daily highlights, promos, sponsor/partnerships content, athlete profiles, social content, archival etc.

The Red content is ingested and edited on site so packages can be integrated into the live broadcast, sometimes with very fast turn around times. I'm talking really fast - eg following a good match-up, an interview plus some b-roll & might be shot and within an hour edited into a package (including action highlights) and ready for broadcast.

I'm sure there's plenty of sports leagues around the world doing the same thing, and I've definitely seen plenty of Red's and Arri's in the background when watching sports broadcasts. Anyone who's worked in a live sports broadcast knows that a lot of content that appears to be live is actually delayed, (eg post-match interviews might be recorded during a commercial break immediately after the final buzzer and played back "as-live" 20 mins later after lots of post-match commentary/breakdown) so it's quite plausible that this sort of content could be shot on a Red, ingested, and played out as-live without anyone even realising.

8 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

However it seems people will buy them, use them once or twice then never use them again. 

The crazy thing is that, even though I'm sure this is happening, the used market is never flooded and the price for used cams is barely less than a brand new one.

Right now it's cheaper for me to buy a Hero 7 new rather than used, because with a brand new one from a retailer I get the 10% GST rebate (because I am also a GST registered business).

It does seem that GoPro control the market for older models very carefully. You won't ever find a 2-years old model in the bargain-big at any big retailer, and it seems like the day a new models comes out the old one is taken off the shelves. They must do some sort of buy-back program with their retailers where they get all the old stock off the shelves, giving people no option but to buy the newer models at the higher price (and also keeping the used market price up because the msrp or street price never goes down before all the stock disappears (unlike, say for example, Canon, who seem to build price drops into their pricing strategy over the life-cycle of a camera).

23 hours ago, Otago said:

What else could they cut down to make the A7s3 though ? Just the variable ND and XLR inputs ? Perhaps the A7S3 will be 8-bit 4k and the FX6 will be 10-bit ? 

I don't really think they need to worry about that too much. Most people buy the FS5 for the 'real video camera' aspect, and will continue to do so with future models even if the mirrorless one has better resolution or frame rates, etc. Of course Sony aren't going to crazy and put 4K120p 10 bit in to the A7sIII, but I don't think it's a big deal if one or two specs are slightly better.

9 hours ago, Perplex said:

fx6 will be full frame as welll

That's probably a bad thing.

If they don't use FF/S35 as the differentiator, then the FX6 will likely be missing a lot of other things. I'm thinking no 60p and no 10bit 4K, just like the FS5.
 

I'd say it's probably not worth it. I've never ever had a client ask about my qualifications. My reel, samples, CV and referrals are the only thing they care about.

Probably the one valuable thing you might get from it is contacts and connections. But If you're going to do a masters course in anything, do it as a director - that way you might meet the people who will actually hire you later on, rather than the ones you'll be competing with. Of course you could always try to find out who from your undergrad course is going to do a masters as a director and offer to be their DP. That way you still get the credits and experience of working on some masters short films without having to pay for it.

4 hours ago, kye said:

In terms of working forwards or working backwards, I've seen some conflicting approaches:

 

This is where the pancake timelines come in handy. On the top level you have the timeline that you're gradually culling so it's just a whole bunch of footage on a single track (maybe with some markers or colour labels to break up different sections or key clips). Then on the bottom timeline you have your clean slate that you can drag and drop things onto and build it from the ground up.

So you can essentially be doing both techniques at the same time.

12 hours ago, kye said:

 I don't know what would have made Fury Road and Gone Girl have ratios like they did...  it's nice to have options in post, but...  

Fury Road might be because of all of the practical effects & stunts, which usually get multiple angles of coverage as they're harder to repeat. 10 cameras shooting a single take = a 10:1 ratio, for example. So in that case, even though the shooting ratio is going up, the budget doesn't really change that much as they're not adding shoot days on to get the extra coverage.

Not sure about Gone Girl though - I guess just lots of takes trying to get those nuanced emotions?

My next biggest editing tip would be to work backwards from the end product. Do a paper edit, or edit it in your head first, before you start anything else (ideally you'd have the end product in your head before you even start shooting!). Decide on roughly how long it is going to be, what your climax is going to be, your opening and closing shots, what sound bites you want to use, what the pacing is, etc. Then once you actually start cutting, put the best shots/sequences in first in roughly the right places, then get your soundtrack & audio bed sorted out, then fill in the holes. If you work out the edit on paper (using the aforementioned spreadsheet) before you even start cutting, you'll be able to do the actual task of editing with a lot more purpose and the decisions will almost make themselves.

 

I was going to go into a whole lot of detail about my post process for larger projects (I do a 10x23min travel TV show) but then realised I'd sound like a pompous wanker (which I am; I just would rather not sound like one), so instead I'll leave you with 2 tips:

PANCAKE EDITING. Once you've got your timeline with your rough selects on it, set up a workspace with two skinny timelines stacked on top of each other (like pancakes) - one with all your media, and one which is your working draft. Then you can quickly drop clips down from the top timeline to the one below, without ever having to go back to your project window or toggle between different timelines. Makes it really quick to scrub through and grab shots to drop into your edit.

SPREADSHEETS. If you haven't already, make a spreadsheet with notes on everything you did. Date, shoot day #, location, people, activities, cameras used, key events, hero shots, etc, etc. Normally I do this at the end of each shoot day while the footage is transferring. It will come in handy so often when editing bigger projects.

On 6/1/2019 at 12:28 AM, kye said:

I've heard of docs commonly being 100:1 and blockbuster movies sometimes go well beyond that IIRC, I remember a ratio above 400:1 which is just madness!

On big features, everything is planned in minute detail so shooting ratios are generally lower than on a doc. a 400:1 ratio would cop any director a serious grilling from the executives. Now obviously they allow time for rehearsals, dry runs, multiple takes etc, but as crew sizes go up, every extra run through a scene just adds to the bottom line. Of course certain scenes will take longer than others because they require more impactful & precise performances, but others are knocked over in one take to compensate.

Will they ever make one?

Yes.

However I'd like to point out that surpassing the equivalent resolution of film is not the same as "digital being better" than film. We've probably already surpassed the equivalent resolution of s35 film but plenty of DOP's still prefer film for qualities like it's highlight rolloff. In fact resolution is probably rarely even a factor these days when it comes time to choose between digital or film.

Has anyone here used the Cinematics mods of the Sigma 18-35 & 50-100?

I know they're not true re-housings, but do they do the job? Are the focus marks accurate and are the hard stops able to withstand a FF motor repeatedly? All the comments I've read about Cinematics/PCHood seem to just simply say "it's a case wrapped around the lens" which seems true of most of their early products and most DSLR lens mods. However the Sigma zooms seem to have more going on as they've added proper manual iris rings as well. I know they're not real cine lenses but for me, what they offer for the price would probably be worth it over the cost of the regular Sigma lenses for my personal kit.

Anybody with experience able to chime in here?
 

9 hours ago, Otago said:

Are you seeing trend to smaller sets or budgets where these things might start to come in useful ? Or is it technology companies driving it because they can't think of/are finding it difficult to engineer anything else to add ? I've been looking at C300 footage recently, scoping out the next upgrade and it made me realise I don't need anything better than that - perhaps some more shooting time and a holiday.

The trend I have noticed with decreasing budgets is that the pace on set is much faster. In that kind of scenario, the time spent digging into a menu to adjust AF sensitivity, or doing extra takes because the AF jumped to the wrong person, is very costly. A good focus puller will not make these mistakes (not saying their focus is always perfect, but they are at least fairly predictable in their hit ratio and behaviour).

9 hours ago, kye said:

If only I shot on imaginary productions..  then I could use my imagination to get rid of all the problems!!

You might note that I said AF/IBIS etc are more the domain of single-person shoots. What type of work are you doing?

On 10/5/2019 at 10:04 PM, Otago said:

I think it's interesting that the professionals who have to get the shot and can't control all the variables need technology to help them with RAW, higher dynamic range and, for some, autofocus. I have read a few things recently that joke about how the people who can afford cameras with RAW and massive dynamic ranges and amazing autofocus are often exactly the people that don't need them because they have a crew that can control all the variables and a focus puller.

If you're talking professional commercial sets, raw and autofocus are actually not used that much. Most commercial shoots using the Alexa shoot in Prores4444 rather than raw, as do a great deal of feature films. Of course there's Red, but r3d is the only option available (for all res/frame rates) so you don't have a choice but to shoot raw.

And autofocus is very rarely used on professional productions. It's more in the domain on hobbyists, or single-man shoots like weddings. Even for gimbal work, pros generally use a follow focus, or deep focus + careful blocking, rather than AF.

We hear a lot more about raw, AF, IBIS, 6K/8K etc on forums than you do on real productions because the people on forums are largely opinionated tech nerds with G.A.S!

I'm almost certain you're being tongue in cheek - but I'm sure Scorsese understands that very well. He'd just rather put his efforts into films that he sees as artistically more fulfilling, rather than another interchangeable smokescreen that is designed purely to put more money into the studios pockets. And I think he's earned the right to pick and choose his projects by this point (not to mention he's earned enough that he can put time into projects he loves over ones that are more profitable).

I agree with him, and have personally not bothered to watch any of them recently unless I'm flying and I need something brainless that I can only half pay attention to. It's just rinse and repeat, for the most part - but often that is what audiences want most (unfortunately!). I just hate the way that every super-hero movie (or other franchise) these days seems like they're are just a teaser for the next movie. It feel like many movies' entire purpose was to introduce a new character, just so that character can have their own stand-alone movie. But that stand alone movie always ends up being the teaser for another new character on the endless treadmill.

7 hours ago, leslie said:

How do you know what bikie's watch ?  my money says it isn't bambi the movie.  Which brings us back to the issue what people are watching and what it is doing to some peoples minds.

Limiting the issue to just cinema fans is kinda narrow minded.  Movies and other content can be watched anywhere these days. One could argue that anyone thats ever turned on a tv, hired a dvd , been online or been to the cinema is a movie fan at some level. Every house in the developed world has one tv if not more. Got school aged kids you have probably got a couple of ipads or laptops as well. Nick fury must be the only person in the world that still has a pager most everyone else would have a smartphone ? perhaps i have generalized, dropping youtube, cinema and any other form of visual media you can think of in the one bag. But lets face it, cinema is the oldest form. If you take exception to that and tell me that cinema is without some  blame well... that would really dumb.

 

 

So your argument is that because I can't prove he hasn't seen this movie, it is 100% correlated to his actions?

We're talking about a guy who's part of an organised criminal enterprise - the type that you're in for life. His profile picture is him flexing with a baseball bat and a very scary dog (and for those not based in Aus - baseball is hardly even a sport here. A baseball bat is not something every family has in their garage). He went on a crime spree which was the culmination of an ongoing, long-term domestic dispute. And you're claiming all of his actions were a result of this film?

12 hours ago, leslie said:

allready has. Some muscle bound idiot shot at his ex then shot at a cop shop and finally shot at some cops, wounding one, only a day or so ago here's the story

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/public-urged-to-avoid-police-stations-in-sydney-s-west-after-reported-shooting-20191002-p52x4z.html

That was a bikie, not some superhero movie fan turned bad after a movie screening. Totally irrelevant to this conversation.

On 9/28/2019 at 10:20 PM, bigmouthmediadigital said:

Has anyone heard about what the FX-6 is going to offer that the 9 doesn't ?

Why would you expect it to offer something more? Most likely it will be priced lower and missing a few features.

If I had to guess, I'd say: s35 4K sensor. Up to 4K60p but 10-bit limited to 30fps. Possibly raw without the extension unit, but only if they keep the sensor at 4K.

10 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

Agreed, the UMP G2 ticks all the boxes except the mount/sensor combo. I would probably go for a nikon 17-55 2.8, but like you said older optical design. 

How do you like the FS5? I'm thinking of picking one up now that they are so cheap and like you said they can be used with speedboosters. Tempted to get one of them and upgrade to the FX9 down the line. E-mount is such a better mount than Canon EF. Hoping Blackmagic's next camera joins the L-mount alliance and is full frame. 

It's not just the UMP that suffers from that problem either. C100/200/300 and EVA1 all share the same combo, as do some of the Red cameras. Not to mention all the people using Metabones adapters on E-mount or m4/3 cameras, and the sure-to-be-wildly-popular Pocket 6K. There's a huge gap in the market there but I suppose all the manufacturers are currently focused on either the new mirrorless systems, or FF coverage for the new pro cine cameras.

I don't like the FS5 as much as the FS7, that is for sure. Though I would take it any day over any mirrorless camera out there. Proper ND and audio are far more important to me that 6k, raw, IBIS, AF, etc.  Not to mention the benefits of using the Shogun Inferno.

On FS5 & FS7 I use speedboosters, so they're pretty much FF equivalent.

I use Canon L zooms 80% of the time and Rokinon Primes the other 20%.

Canon 17-40 f/4, 24-70 f/2.8, 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/2.8 IS.

Rokinon DS 35/50/85

No strategy other than If I feel a need or a gap in my coverage, I plug it. I mostly use the zooms as they're much easier for the doc work I do. Never use or want AF and always have IS turned off on the lenses that have it (I have my cameras rigged heavy so the inertia helps smooth things out, and the IS on the older Canon lenses is too jumpy).

I'm thinking my next camera will be the UMP G2 and the lens choices will be a bit harder than that. There's just no good wide-to-mid zoom that ticks all the boxes the same way the 24-70 or 24-105 lenses do. I'll likely get a Sigma 18-35 & 50-100 but don't think they will quite give me the coverage I need for my work. It's really been a while since any company - either OEM or 3rd party - bothered to update their ~17-50 APS-C line-up, and the existing ones are all pretty terrible for video work due to their poor build quality (though some are optically good). I'm really quite surprised that no company has yet released a decent, modern, 17-50 f/2.8 EF mount cine lens, given the amount of s35 cameras that support EF mount. Something similar in price and build to the 18-35 Sigma cine, but a bit slower and a bit longer, would be the perfect run-n-gun lens for a huge number of people, but it simply does not exist at a price point that makes sense for cameras like the C100/200, UMP or EVA1.
 

1 hour ago, Snowbro said:

What I did could not be packaged up into a 3D LUT. It is possible that you are partially blind, not sure. I don't think many people know about, or are very proficient at adding multiple artificial light sources, masking and blending them to look natural. It's ok, I didn't know about it two years ago. 

I also mentioned that what I did, was very crude in comparison to what is out there. I don't even know the extent of it, I wasn't seeking it out. I was just showed some proprietary software while on a trip to our devs HQ. The average videographer has always been what, 10 years + behind what hollywood can do? I am not going to try to educate you; it doesn't seem like you are the type of person that learns easily. 

How predictable. I though it was nigh time you started resorting to insults.

As for educating me, I consider myself more of a visual learner. So perhaps you can show me a visual example demonstrating what you've said you've done?

Ok, so you've graded some drone footage. That's not exactly adding lighting that wasn't there to begin with. It's just playing with colour and contrast. It's a standard part of every editor & colourists job.That's a far cry from adding a rim light or kicker to a talking head that wasn't there to begin with.

Also I'm not talking about highlight rolloff - that is a function of the camera - I'm talking about quality of light; whether it is hard or soft. Gradients. Big sources vs point sources. Photography/cinematography after all, are about painting with light.

Now you've also introduced computational photography, multiple exposures, etc into the mix. That has more in common with 3D modelling, animation and compositing than cinematography. My initial comment was that 20 stops of dynamic range is not going to replace the need for lighting. Maybe other technology will (eg the combination of photo-real animation and motion capture for 100% virtual sets), but dynamic range will not.

So, do you have any examples that show you have "actually seen and done that in post" regarding the three examples you made that comment about (ie added a kicker/rim light, turn harsh sunlight into soft portrait light, or completely remove harsh shadows created by a direct overhead source)?

 

1 hour ago, Snowbro said:

I have actually seen and done exactly that in post and I dont even have anything close to what Hollywood has for post production. Software is pretty crazy now, if you know what to do. I have seen tons of proprietary programs that would blow your mind. I think many people here would be scared for their job if they knew what is around the corner. Which brings everything back to the main point many of you were making, it really is about the story. If you cant tell a good story or evoke emotions through your work, keep it a hobby or prepare to find a different job down the road. 

I would love to see an example of a shot where you've effectively added a non-existent kicker in post to make the subject stand out from the background and still look natural, or turned a hard edged shadow into soft falloff across a subjects face.

 

2 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

I pointed that out in my post. 

I wouldn't necessarily call those things "style" though.

They're just standard techniques for making your actors/actresses look good and be properly visible on screen.

Stylised lighting would be things like mixed gels, or low-key, or high-key, or golden hour, or night-time interiors, etc. Things that evoke a certain mood.

20 stops will help you control a bright, sunny background while shooting your subject in the shade for softer headshot lighting, but it's not going to help you with all the elements of shaping light that are the essence of cinematic images.

21 minutes ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

Large leaps in Dynamic range will be a game changer. If you have a camera that shoots 20 stops of DR, you could pretty much get away with not lighting your scenes. That said you still have to light if you want any kind of style. 

Tough we've been at the point for years, now more than ever where cameras are really cheap and really good. Yet still a lot of indie filmmakers would rather use 80% of their budget renting a RED camera. 

20 stops would be great but it's not going to negate the need for lighting. Having 20 stops isn't going to help wrap harsh sunlight softly around cheeks. Or get rid of harsh shadow lines under eyes from an overhead streetlamp. Or magically make a rim light or kicker appear where there is not one.

19 minutes ago, kye said:

Your seem to be under the impression that people would decide between buying the new iPhone and hiring a camera.

I would suggest that the situation is more like "I want to make a film but I have no money for hiring a camera" and the next statement is either going to be something like "crap, it don't know anyone with a camera I can borrow that's good enough" or "wow, the new iPhone has the three lenses I really need.. Someone we know must have it! Right, we're in business!"

You're right that anyone could have made a film with the last iPhone, but the improvements in this one are taking the video quality past a threshold that makes things look palatable on a big screen (previous smartphones have produced footage that was borderline and so fragile it almost couldn't be graded, especially the 50mm camera) and it also adds a super-wide which makes it more flexible again.

I'll agree that the differences aren't night and day, but small differences at threshold points (FOV options, IQ, and perception) can make more difference than you might think.

It's going to be a lot easier to find someone who'll lend you a DSLR or mirrorless camera, or possibly even a Red, than to find someone who'll lend you their phone for an hour, let alone for the weeks or months it takes you to shoot. Plenty of people have cameras, even really good ones, which sit there for months at a time not being used. Some of those people are happy to lend it out to friends (And if you're into filmmaking, you or someone you're shooting with has probably got a few friends that own some of this gear). However people are much more attached to their phones (especially the Apple fanboys who rush out to get the latest, greatest iphone) and you're never going to get someones uncle to lend you there phone for however many hours/weeks/months it takes you to shoot your project. The only phone you'll be using to shoot a film will be one that belongs to a crew member that is already going to be there for every single scene - ie the director or dop. And as I pointed out in my previous post, you can get other proper cameras cheaper than the cost of the new iphone.

And regarding the better IQ/benefits of the newer phones - that will have much less impact overall than people's skills & creativity. Nobody is pixel peeping 4K footage when watching a $0 film. But if it's not well lit, or the sounds sucks, or the acting is terrible, or the story is non-existent, nobody will watch past the first 30 seconds. Also you mentioned IQ on the big screen, but lets be honest - a $0 film is not going to be seen on a big screen no matter how good. Even festivals have entry fees, assuming your final film is even good enough to make the cut (which - if you're a bunch of total amatuers who between you do not know a single person you can borrow an old DSLR from, is very unlikely).