barefoot_dp

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.

Short answer:
No. 

Longer answer.
Probably not. 

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.

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.

 

Yes. And until such time, I refuse to make any more wedding videos.
It's ridiculous that we don't have 12k now. 
24k would be even better ?

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 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.

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.

I just buy a lot of lenses and then only use one or two of them.

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.
 

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.
 

He's the Clapperboard guy. Also responsible for rentals, charging batteries etc.

On low/no budget everyone is doing multiple jobs. Maybe it's the director, or maybe it's the DP,  but SOMEBODY needs to be looking at the location and saying "lets move that table over there because it looks too modern" or "lets put a cheap rug on the floor to make it look more like grandmas dingy living room" or "he's the bad guy so he's going to wear the black hoodie". My point was more that people thinking creatively and doing there jobs well are going to have a lot more impact on the final product than whether you shoot on the newest iPhone or on my crappy Huawei or on an old DVX100 you borrowed from your school.

Oh and by the way, it's the 1st AC that pull focus.

On low/no budget everyone is doing multiple jobs. Maybe it's the director, or maybe it's the DP,  but SOMEBODY needs to be looking at the location and saying "lets move that table over there because it looks too modern" or "lets put a cheap rug on the floor to make it look more like grandmas dingy living room" or "he's the bad guy so he's going to wear the black hoodie". My point was more that people thinking creatively and doing there jobs well are going to have a lot more impact on the final product than whether you shoot on the newest iPhone or on my crappy Huawei or on an old DVX100 you borrowed from your school.

Oh and by the way, it's the 1st AC that pull focus.

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).

My comments were about the Noam Kroll article, which pertains specifically to the new iPhone. A new iPhone is not exactly cheap either. I just had a quick look, for a "cheap" plan here in AUS it's $70/month over 2 years (on top of the base plan) for the iPhone 11 Pro (for a total of $1680). I think if I had a look around I'd be able to find a DVX100 or similar for $70 (one months payment), or for the total cost of upgrading the phone, I could get a pretty decent camera setup, with a couple of lights too.

Of course, you can shoot on a phone already. You don't need the newest iphone. But if current/older phones have not yet revolutionised filmmaking, why do you think anything has changed?

There's no 5" monitor that can record 10bit from the FS5. The FS5 only does 10bit via Raw/SDI; HDMI is limited to 8 bit.

We can all cross our fingers for the new BM Video Assist though - they do not support Sony Raw upon release but have said they want to expand compatibility, whatever that means.

This is a really interesting comment especially amongst a  Group of people that really actually respect intellectual property rights (my background is more 'property is theft'). But surely the whole point of Colonel Saunders (KFC) is that his 'recipe' is a big 'secret' because you cant patent a 'recipe'. What you need for a patent is an 'individual ingredient' and while redescribing a bayer array might sound like one it clearly isnt...

I got my start 15 years ago on a VX2100. Skate videos and comedy short films. Those were the days...

Thats the crux, how "specific and particular" does a recipe need to be to be patented. Red's patent is incredibly broad, like instead of being a recipe for a particular burger it is like a recipe that encompasses all burgers, not just the one RED makes. It even knocks down formats that existed before Redcode was invented--just because apprently ">4000 pixels wide" is a specific recipe ingredient.
Blackmagic will likely reintroduce the cdng raw video they were forced to remove for legal reasons. Z cam probably would, they are currently making a "partial debayer" raw, likely because bayer raw is currently illegal. Sony obviously wants the patent gone, they tried to appeal it before, likely for their cameras that require an external unit (fs5 price range and up, i suspect.)

lol, wth wants that holographic display anyway. 

A recipe includes a lot more than just ingredients. And those ingredients can make a lot more than just that single recipe.
Your analogy is like saying that McDonalds should be allowed to patent the Big Mac in such a way that would prevent a Kebab shop from selling a beef doner that has lettuce, onion, cheese & tahini (sesame seed). It's the same ingredients and the end result is comparable in the sense that they are both fast food items, but they got there in a completely different way.

When compared to what Red have done, your analogy is like asking if anobody else should be allowed to make cola, or burgers. But there's a lot of people making burgers and cola, because to patent those ideas would be totally insane.

 

I'm under no impression that Apple are doing this for the greater good of the consumer! But nor is this a case of a legal challenge over "who owns the patent?". There is no outcome (to this legal battle) where Apple ends up with the patent and we have to pay big bucks for it.
 
 

Yes, that is why I specified that it can't be an outcome to the "LEGAL BATTLE." Any acquisition would be a separate event, and one that could theoretically happen at any time regardless of the legal proceedings at hand.

I agree with you that Apple most likely want to make further use or Prores Raw, either in their own products, or by licensing it to other companies. And seeing as they've already done that with Atomos at no additional cost to the end user, it does not appear as though Apple would be charging extortionate amounts for the license.

Time will tell!

"put raw data in internal storage media" is not a company intellectual property and shouldn't be. These guys are a bunch of charlatans. Period.