TomTheDP
-
Posts
1,071 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Posts posted by TomTheDP
-
-
12 hours ago, herein2020 said:
Are these full length feature films? I can't imagine how anyone makes money off of a feature film in that price range. Is the pay based on the final profits after the film is sold? I have worked on some photo shoots that had a bigger budget than that and that was just photography. Even with just my solo day rate I couldn't film a feature film for that price range let alone all of the additional expenses that goes into making something like that.
I know a videographer that worked on something in that price range but he was still waiting yrs later to get paid because he got almost nothing up front and instead was getting paid based on a percentage of the sales.
Just trying to wrap my head around how shooting/editing/color grading/delivering that much footage could be financially profitable especially considering all of the expenses and time that I imagine goes into making a feature film.
Yeah I know what you mean. My fiance is a Production Designer and has done projects where the Art Budget is 30k and that doesn't include her personal rate.
When I DP the pay is upfront. DP is usually the highest paid person on the project. The director is usually taking money on the back end with whoever is producing. DP'ing at this level isn't great pay, though it is paying my bills at the moment. These are like 5-7 day shoots.
I am in talks with a producer to DP/Direct/Write a film in the 30k budget range (already written) and splitting the profit 50/50 on the back end. That is where the money is made. Obviously making money on the back end is a risk, but I have seen the money from previous projects and the risk for me is only my time. Making 2-3 times what you have spent is a big win in my book. -
Cropping isn't the worst thing, but yeah open gate on the S1H is a better option for 2x anamorphic lenses.
-
1 minute ago, PPNS said:
the reason why we dont have 14 bit readout is fairly simple, its much more unstable and processor intensive, as well as some sensors not even having the option, while not adding much benefit in the first place, as you can see with that new fuji camera. i think most of you are way too busy discussing things that dont matter much in the first place. what even is mojo?We've seen Canon intentionally gimp their own cameras, putting in inferior hardware that would cause overheating. I personally doubt it is an issue of can't. Of course we now have the XH2S, with a sony sensor(maybe?) that is doing a 14 bit readout. The shadow retention on that camera is quite impressive especially for a S35 sensor, which I assume has a lot to do with the 14 bit readout. Performance was gimped by fuji's weird Xtrans filter and bad processing.
Most things come down to money but I also see a lot of incompetency with these camera companies, which is also probably stemming from a lack of budget in R&D. The camera market is pretty dead. In terms of marketing I don't know, I don't work for these companies. I am just making guesses.
I have used lower end cameras for a long time. Recently in 2022 and this year I have had the chance to shoot on RED and ARRI for several feature film projects. I was of the opinion that it is a waste of money and time to shoot with these cameras for the most part. I don't hold that opinion anymore. At the end of several of my projects last year I was questioning the merit of using a heavier, older cinema camera vs something much lighter and quicker to use. Once I started coloring the projects I changed my mind. The EPIC Dragon and Alexa EV are both pretty old tech as well. I am excited to possibly shoot with the RED monstro or LF soon.
Am I focusing on things that don't matter? Maybe? I am not a director, the story is not my realm. My job is the image which is achieved through the camera and lighting. Everything in my line of work is arbitrary to some degree. It is art. It's choosing between using a frost or white diffusion. Does the audience care? What is too much and what is too little? I don't know. Small things that add up. It's an obsessive job but that is part of the fun, at least to me.
Anyways I am hopeful to see something with 14 bit readout on the market soon that is in the affordable range. Rooting for Panasonic.
-
4 hours ago, Chrille said:
Can you share some of the movies you have worked on in this preice region? Very interesting!
I've worked on 5 films in the last couple years that were in this budget range, non of them are out yet though. I DM'ed you some stills from the last one that I DP'ed. These are all Tubi films. Check out McGraw Ave Season 2 on Tubi, that was done by one of the production companies I've worked with, and one of my good friends DP'ed it.
-
7 hours ago, stephen said:
Just trying to explain in a friendly conversation why IMHO we don't see 14 bit video in hybrid cameras.
Image quality is a process and camera is just a part of this process. Even if we concentrate only on camera IMHO it would be wrong to attribute image quality of a sensor/camera to a single parameter as 14bit color. It's a complex thing.Correct me if I am wrong but according to this page ARRI RAW is 12bit
https://www.arri.com/en/learn-help/learn-help-camera-system/pre-postproduction/file-formats-data-handling/arriraw-faq#accordion-292364while Red RAW is 16 bit - https://www.red.com/power-of-red-redcode
Does it mean then that 16 bit Red RAW image quality or Canon 5D Mark III with it's 14 bit color are superior to Arri ? Image quality is different even among Red Cameras. Isn't it ? Red Komodo then is capable of 16bit image. For me this is price point that many can afford.
Wanted to point out also that economics play a significant role in choice of cameras and of course cameras capabilities. For me capabilities vs price when comparing 2000$ cameras with 20000$ or more cameras are hugely in favor of the lower price point cameras. You get ~ 90 or more percent of the image quality for 1/10 or less of the price. Nothing to complain about here.
Of course progress thankfully will not stop and agree that 8K was not the right direction for hybrid camera to go. It was the easiest to achieve and market. I wish to see more cameras with smaller rolling shutter, internal BRAW or ProRes RAW and integrated in camera ND filters more than anything else.
Blind tests are some sort of reality check, far from ideal or strictly scientific but still reality check. So when we give certain qualifications of better or worst we need some sort of starting point for comparison that most can agree on, otherwise it is subjective.
Thankfully we have now great cameras to work with at any price point and if you shoot something interesting and engaging with your Panasonic S1, image quality will not be the decisive factor whether people will like it or not. Nobody and I mean NOBODY will come after and say: "Nice movie but I wish colors were better". It is always good to have this perspective when we dream or wish for new cool tools 🙂
The Alexa does a 14 bit readout. RED does 16 bit. The Alexa uses 12 bit log both in RAW and ProRes. RED uses 16 bit linear. If you look up the difference between linear and log you’ll get it.
All RED cameras, ARRI, and Sony Venice do either 14 bit or 16 bit readout.
All prosumer cameras like the S1, Sony FX cameras, Canon’s entire lineup do either a 12 bit readout or 10 bit readout. This is why these cameras 12 bit raw performs poorly compared to ARRIs 10 bit, as even when recording 422, ARRI is doing a 14 bit readout. Of course the unique ARRI sensor and color science/processing makes a big difference too.
As someone who’s job it is to give the best picture possible I have shot engaging projects with the S1 and in post have been disappointed in the image. This is what I am saying. I have used a wide variety of cameras on narrative shorts and features. I avoid shooting with low end options unless it’s forced by the budget. It just makes my job harder.
The Komodo is great but it is a cheap sensor being used. If you like side by side tests I’ve done them, Komodo vs Alexa. The Komodo’s lack of dynamic range is apparent and the color science/skin tones are noticeably different. This is when shooting with natural light. The Komodo simply can’t hold onto the highlights.
Blind tests are great for YouTube content but they don’t offer much practical info for using a camera on production.
I do think there is a practical limitation on what is good enough. ARRI is that limitation. 14 bit readout into a 12 bit log, 4k resolution, and about 14 stops of dynamic range. The Alexa 35 goes to 17 stops of dynamic range, a bit overkill but I can see how it would be helpful sometimes. They stuck with 4k resolution and a 14 bit readout. That seems to give you what you’d need in post production. Which has definitely been my practical experience.
I am specifically talking narrative use on production. If one is just shooting their own content it definitely doesn’t matter much. I definitely don’t recommend everyone go pick up an ARRI or RED camera. But for people who do what I do, I usually would. This industry is very niche though and I’m in my own little small niche within it.
-
8 hours ago, Kisaha said:
guys, just grab an R7 and go outside and shoot already!
I do, I just like to complain about IQ, during my restless nights
-
9 hours ago, stephen said:
Unless somebody can prove in blind test even among relatively small circle of professionals that 14bit is better compared to 12 bit or even correctly recognized will consider it purely subjective. All tests that I've seen and even participated in indicate the opposite. A local shop did a test with Sony A7 series cameras in their early days. They've shot 10 pictures with different subjects and lighting conditions with Canon, Nikon and Sony A7 12bit compressed format. All 3 cameras were full frame. On screen and on print Canon and Nikon owners were not able to distinguish or guess which pictures were shot with their beloved cameras which they will passionately claim in forums have superior 14bit or whatever colors 🙂 It was completely random. We had some 11-12 years ago Great Zakuto shootout, this one here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZjIz8sB2vg) and so on 🙂
Blind tests aren't of much use. The zakuto blind tests says that a GH1 and 35mm film are equal. So why didn't camera development stop there? It would indicate 10 bit log, 4k, high bitrate, and anything beyond 8 stops of dynamic range, doesn't really matter. Cameras aren't developed or sold on blind tests. I don't think any professional is choosing a camera based on blind tests either. They have certainly offered no use to me.
You can argue IQ has nothing to do with making a pleasing looking image. That is definitely true in many ways. But it has nothing to do with marketing. You can say that marketing is all bullshit. I'd agree with that. 8k is useless for 99% of people yet it is a great buzzword for marketing. You are saying though that 14 bit recording is useless and blind tests somehow prove this.
If you are simply trying to say that 14 bit isn't marketable, that could be true. I am not a marketing specialist. But camera companies don't use blind tests to market or else they would all be out of business.
In my experience when you actually use a camera on production and work with it through post, then you see a difference. There isn't really much debate there. Can a film look good that isn't shot on a cinema camera? Yes of course. But cameras like ARRI and RED are industry favored by pretty much any DP you would ask.
To me DP's are usually the last people to fall for marketing hype. These people see images constantly from production all the way to the finished product. ARRI isn't favored because of internet blind tests, they are favored because they actually make production and post workflow much easier. I'd love it if my S1 could give me the same image as an Alexa. But from my experience it just doesn't.
If you want a good test of a camera shoot 100 different scenes in all different scenarios, time restraints, lighting conditions, different sized crews, and then color correct and grade all of the shots and scenes. Do that with 5 different cameras and than compare them all. Well that couldn't be put in a little 5 minute youtube video. Stuff that is actually helpful can't be compressed into a little youtube video. Experience gotten from months of shooting and in post gives one a good idea of what matters.
Anyways 14 bit plus capture, even if it is just the readout is the way forward to better IQ imo. The Alexa shooting in 422 is still using a 14 bit readout. That is partially why it looks way better than cameras that are shooting 12 bit linear raw, which is a marketing scam. 12 bit linear raw really doesn't give you any more information to work with than a good 10 bit ALL-I. The advantage is it sometimes gets around the horrid internal processing many cameras do to their 10 bit options for some reason. But it also often reveals how shitty consumer sensors are in the shadows, bad colored noise and banding that is normally hidden by heavy noise reduction.
The Alexa has a 14 bit readout regardless of if you shoot 422 or 444 or RAW.
Anyways I am just expressing my disappointment in camera development. I would extend that disappointment to the high end cameras as well. RED is partially to blame in my opinion. They pushed the whole high resolution band wagon that consumer cameras jumped on. 10 years later and the best camera in the world the Alexa 35 only shoots 4k, while RED releases cameras for 1/2 what they did their previous line-up, with sensors that can't even match ARRI's 5 year old cameras. 13 years ago the Alexa came onto the market, the camera that replaced film essentially. 13 years later it's still the best sensor on the market, only surpassed by ARRI's own Alexa 35.
It's unfortunate resolution got put on the forefront of development instead of color depth, which also leads to increased dynamic range.
Am I saying the 5D MK3 is the pinnacle of image quality? No I am not. But it was capable of giving you a high bitrate 14 bit 1080p image. That was 11 years ago. Why can't we have 14 bit RAW 3K-4K in a small prosumer camera 11 years later. We get the same releases with a MK2 slapped onto it, with micro improvements. Very annoying.
Now you can tell me these are first world problems and I will gladly agree. I am in between projects right now and don't have any kids, so I have the time. And if this forum is not the place to vent about the BS that camera companies do than maybe I am just very confused.
- solovetski, FHDcrew and mercer
-
3
-
9 hours ago, stephen said:
How do you shoot at 3.5K in 14 bit color ? 3520x1740 at 14bit gives me just few seconds, 3520x1740 at 12bit is from 15 sec to 1-2 minutes. Have to drop to 10bit in order to get closer to continuous. And this is with global draw off. With global draw on it is even worst.
Canon 5D Mark III raw video in crop mode for me is PRACTICALLY UNUSABLE:
- there is no live view framing, you can't see on a monitor of even the tiny screen what you shoot
- rolling shutter is more than 33 ms
- camera is unreliable, had many freezes and you don't know if your recording is going to stop and especially when it is going to stop.
- as your ISO increases your dynamic range and color palette decrease
- software hack is always in development and movement, you don't know what bug your are going to hit and whenTried many times to use it in crop mode and always ended in frustration. 1080p is the best, can have external monitor and proper framing, reliable, simple, 35mm lens has the same angle of view as on full frame. Use super scale in Resolve or Video Enhance AI to upscale to 4K and it is good enough. There you can shoot in 14 bits no problem.
Why we don't see 14bit video in hybrid cameras ? Simple answer is:
- no demand - just look how many good video in RAW shot with Canon 5D Mark III hack are on youtube. For more than 12 years. Interest and usage are slim.
- still some challenges to shoot and process such a massive amount of data. I know for a fact that in my (relatively small) country TV series are shot on Arri Alexa not in RAW but on Prores 4:2:2. Without compression very few people or companies are willing to deal with RAW video. BRAW or ProRes RAW, Red RAW - yes no problem. Cinema DNG files even with lossless compression - few are willing to deal with data volume and workflow that comes with it.I honestly doubt that anybody can see the difference between 14 and 12 bit color, especially on the monitors and screens we are using. I tested it on Canon 5D Mark III some time ago and couldn't. 14bit vs 12 bit, color science when related to RAW video and even in 10bit 4:2:2 - all this is purely subjective. All those claims of superiority falls apart when doing a blind test. Can give as example several published on internet tests.
I tried recently iPhone 14 for video after seeing several people on youtube recommending it. Shot on same location and lighting condition where some time ago shot a small personal project / clip with Canon 5d Mark III in RAW video crop mode. Yes you can't switch off sharpening, noise reduction and tone mapping for better dynamic range on iPhone but Oh boy how easy it was to get great picture quality, how good image stabilization was. Apply some grain and film emulation using dehancer and it is good enough. Efforts vs results comparable to Canon 5D Mark III are 100% on iPhone side.
I am thinking seriously to get one of those new Android smartphones with 1'' sensor like Vivo X90 Pro Plus and shoot raw video on a smartphone for personal projects. It can do 4K 60p RAW and I believe this is only in 10bit DNG. Apply some grain, film emulation in dehancer and image look gorgeous to me. It is a lot easier than Canon 5D Mark III and it the end results will be equally impressive if not better. And this camera is with you all the time 🙂
Whole history of photography is a move toward ease of use and convenience once certain acceptable image quality has been achieved. Image quality by the way matters mostly to us, people who shoot not to the people and wide audience who will watch it. That's also a proven fact we should never forget.
I wouldn't say slim, the Magic Lantern community was pretty large. People went through the trouble of making a hack and dealing with the insecurities of using it. People still use it to this day. 10 bit and 12 bit RAW are selling points, so I am not sure why 14 bit wouldn't be.
Side by side comparisons aren't particularly useful imo. Compile hours and hours of footage from a project, being able to compare tons of different lighting scenarios and real practical limitations. Do that with an Iphone and than any of the 10 bit SLR's on the market and you'll quickly see the difference in post. Same goes jumping from a prosumer 10 bit image to any actual cinema camera.
That is my opinion obviously from my personal experience. -
25 minutes ago, Kino said:
I managed to download a few brief 8K 50fps NRAW NEV samples from another forum and view them in the latest version of Resolve (18.1.4):
https://forum.grassvalley.com/forum/editors/editing-with-edius/572094-n-raw-from-z9-sample-download
They are now listed as 12 bit according to Nikon specs. There must have been a decoding problem that has been solved since Resolve 18.0. Perhaps NEV files are captured in 12 bit log and Resolve previously converted them to 14 bit linear. It is hard to know what the issue was as TicoRAW compression is new to the camera world (hence the RED lawsuit).
The same TicoRAW conversion that the Z9 utilizes when compressing for photos in the "High Efficiency" RAW mode at 14 bit readout is also utilized to create the NRAW files. In photo mode, this is limited to 20fps at full sensor readout (8256 x 5504). Although the video mode uses a crop (8256 x 4644), which produces a 38mp image, it doesn't seem possible that you could get 14 bit RAW video at frame rates higher than 24/25. The Canon R3 could do 14 bit RAW at 30fps with its 6K video, but Canon would never do such a thing! That would obliterate its current cinema line.
In any case, the rich color tonality we were seeing in the Z9 footage is still there and the files edit nicely on a 4K timeline. They are perhaps not as optimized as R3D files, but they should be easier for editing than Canon 8K RAW Light.
12 bit log has a similar amount of info as 14 bit linear raw. But yeah the image definitely looks very nice regardless.
-
2 minutes ago, rosco said:
You’re using the Sigma fp as a B cam anyway, I don’t think audience would care if it’s missing the 2 extra bits in raw. I think when the lighting is good and the color closely matches, non pixel peeping audiences wouldn’t really notice. I would only use the B cam for certain angles and pick up shots, A cam would be used 90-95%. Ymmv.
I mean I probably wouldn't shoot with a Classic if my only concern was audience perception.
3 hours ago, mercer said:Not only can I notice the lower bit depth, I'm fairly certain there is some type of noise reduction occurring behind the scenes with the FP. The extra resolution from the FP is nice but I feel like it resembles a lot of other camera's images from compressed codecs with just more leeway in post to make some changes.
The 5D3, on the other hand, has a higher end look in my opinion and the image is more malleable especially in the highlights, but the shadow detail is much cleaner with the FP.
They also share a similar post workflow for me... bring the footage into Resolve, correct/grade, export as ProRes and import into FCPX for the final edit/grade.
At first glance, the bump in resolution may make you feel like the FP has a superior image, but once you get into the files... let's just say that if I had to choose one, I'd sell the FP and keep the 5D3.
With that said, I think people underestimate the benefits of 14bit color. In some ways, it gives a perceived bump in DR because it is capturing the minute differences in hues. I notice it in skies and in tree bark.
I'm also a fan of shooting with DSLRs... especially chunky, full frame ones. If I could afford a 1DX iii, I'm sure I would love it.
How is monitoring with the 5D MK3? Really considering it honestly.
-
5 hours ago, SRV1981 said:
Makes sense! Just trying to see if there is a downside of it. I may call to see details. 0% seems like a no brainer. Could make acquiring an fx3 a better deal than outright purchase of fx30
I honestly would go with the FX30 over the FX3. The A7S3/FX3 have too much image processing which ruin the internal 10 bit recordings. Shooting external RAW bypasses this but its an annoying workaround that doesn't offer much benefit aside from bypassing the ugly internal processing.
Used the FX30 recently on a short, which included low light scenes and it looked great. Film grain was added in post but the original recordings were pretty clean.
-
-
-
-
-
3 hours ago, Tim Sewell said:
Hmmm. My understanding is that a major reason for the almost exclusive use of Arri for serious movie making is the fact that if the camera goes down the Arri network is so good that another will be delivered within hours. I should have thought that kind of protection against downtime would be just as important (if not more) on a low-budget production.
I mean you could just buy 10 DSLR's and have them on stand by and spend way less.
-
1 hour ago, Kino said:
It seems that he added the NR on the Z9 N-RAW 8K in post using Resolve, but it does not include downsampling. With downsampling to 4K, you should be able to get another .5 stop. So, if you take out the NR but downsample to 4K, you should be back at around 12.5 usable stops.
As for why Nikon did not advertise the 14 bit NEV files, I'm not entirely sure, but I plan to find out . . .
I would definitely be considering it if it is a 14 bit readout. That would be very unique. 12.5 stops with the texture of 8k raw would be very nice.
Still a heck of a lot pricier than my Sigma FP, but for a good reason. -
-
26 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:
What about when you’re comparing DR, color, log profiles?
DR is pretty simple. Check CineD or Gerald Undone. Most cameras have dynamic range results between those two sources. For Color I usually rely on a lot of different sources from youtube, forums(including this one), people I know, colorists opinions, and just my own perception from reviewing footage.
I think the FX30 is kind of ignored on here because it is a boring camera. It doesn't push past any boundaries. It was also very late incoming. An APSC Sony camera that could do 10 bit and 4k 120p was rumored for a long time. The XH2S has much more interesting capabilities and specs.
That said the Sony FX30 is very capable and does what it does well. I personally think the IQ looks and feels better than the FX3. It just isn't a super exciting release.
-
3 hours ago, Kino said:
This chart mentions NR. Is it just talking about the NR that comes from downsampling 8k to 4k? or is it adding noise reduction in davinci or other program.?
If it is adding NR in post that means the actual dynamic range is about 12 stops. The Panasonic S1 has more without NR. 12 stops still isn't bad.
The 8k Sony venice gets 12.8 stops when downsampling 8k to 4k in post. The RED raptor is getting 12.5 stops. So 12 isn't bad.
The stills you posted do look fantastic though. Would be awesome if it was a 14 bit readout, though it seems like they would advertise that.
-
If it is 14 bit it should be identical to 14 bit RAW photos. Does the RAW video and photos have the same dynamic range? 12.5 stops with noise reduction isn't the greatest.
-
4 hours ago, IronFilm said:
MANY things!
Timecode.
SDI outputs.
Reliability.
Internal NDs.
More recording options.
etc etc etc etc
But for many people these extra factors don't matter to them.
However, for many professionals these would be deal breakers for these to be missing.
The C70 doesn't have SDI unfortunately.
-
3 hours ago, IronFilm said:
Got any tips and advice?
Hollywood can make a movie that appeals to a wide general audience without hitting as much of a niche. If you don't have a huge marketing budget you aren't going to be able to do that. You have to find a niche. It is really that simple. I guess that is the same story for any small business.
For me it has been Detroit films on the streaming service Tubi. Only working as a cinematographer but I am about to direct/produce one and see some of the back end. Will be interesting.
-
1 hour ago, fuzzynormal said:
You can't tell me that most of us here have the technical skill to make an Academy Award Winning film like Nomadland. It's brain-dead simple if you have an inkling of video production craft.
Storytelling maybe not so much, but that film could've been shot on a 5DII and no one would care or notice.
To me winning at an Oscar is more politics than talent. Sure your film won't get nominated if it is crap but it also won't get nominated just because it is really good.
The people that care on a $5 mil budget indie like Nomadland are the producers, director, and DP. None of which want to be seen working with anything besides a camera that costs over 30k
.png.fa4d8e8a4dced2147b8d8b5d15e84d4e.png)
No-Budget Movies Are Taking Over: Welcome to a New Era of Filmmaking
In: Cameras
Posted
Yeah definitely on the more standard industry side music videos are usually tough budget wise.
I know a guy who does music videos for like $500 a pop, that includes shooting and edit. Super basic stuff but he makes a living off that.
All this cheap gear both in terms of camera, editing software, computers is basically creating a world where anyone can make a film for relatively cheap. With all the streaming platforms now you have access to sell your stuff in a way that wasn't possible before.
I don't know if it is good or bad, probably a bit of both. It is for sure interesting.