Clark Nikolai

I agree. I've been around computers since the '80s and Resolve just has too much clutter as well as non-intuitive locations for features. If it wasn't free for the non-pro version and wasn't multi-platform it wouldn't be as popular as it is. So many people I know use it only because it's free or they have a PC and can't run Final Cut. They waste so much time trying to do things though. I found it interesting teaching FCPX to people who have edited before compared to those who have never. The ones who knew other NLEs found it spooky. Things seemed to be moving on their own and they didn't understand why. For those with other NLE experience it does take training. But for someone who has never used an NLE they get it very quickly. I've seen people up and editing away after only a half hour of instruction. It's had a renaissance since the initial freak-out when it was first launched. Lots of pros use it now. I've used it on TV series and on feature films. As an assistant editor it's a dream to work on. But the thing is, unlike that past, it's now pretty easy to move a sequence from one NLE to another so it kind of doesn't matter anymore what someone is using, you can manage to hand it off to someone else. You no longer have to use the same stuff as the others on the team. Sounds exciting. I guess that's my main suggestion; being able to appear simple when all you're doing is cutting and only show the detailed options when you need them.

Sounds interesting. I would say that FCP's magnetic timeline is what makes it so fast (once you learn it.) Also that you can hide all the clutter and make it look simple. But I don't want to discourage you on this project. Give it a try. For suggestions, I don't have many but I suppose being able to run on old hardware and old OS version. There are plenty old Mac Pro towers out there from 2010 still working away. Mostly places that do videotape digitizing in standard definition and people running old telecines where the software won't run on new computers. Good luck.

Last year I experimented with a Digital Bolex and an iOS app that recorded the gyroscopic data from the phone. I took the footage and the phone's sensor data in Gyroflow software and was able to stabilize the footage. It worked well and I was impressed by it but cumbersome in the field to shoot with as you have to start the app and then start rolling the camera, it was more trouble than it was worth for me at that time so I didn't continue with it. Now I hear about this new product called Niyien Senseflow A1. A tiny little thing that you can put in your cold shoe and only have to start it once per day. Seems pretty neat. I'm pondering getting one and trying it out. I'll let you know how it goes. Does anyone on here have one and can give their experience with it?

This reminds me of using my old Sony camcorder with the 5.1 surround sound microphone. I would shoot with it, then in post be able to isolate each channel and choose which one to use and ignore the ones that were just location noise. Pretty handy without much effort when shooting. This might be similar in that sense.

It seems there's a bit of a trend (at least with some YouTubers), to make your own cinema camera. Mathew Trahan is making a CinePi. Alt Frames, is also doing the CinePi project with his own mods. So, interesting. It's now become something that people can make their own if they want. I suspect it'll become a hobbyist thing much like how people are 3D printing their own film still cameras. David Bross was interviewed by CineD, (mostly about his app,) he talks a bit about how he got to try to "resurrect" the Digital Bolex. So, I've decided that in my new film I'm working on, which is set in the present day and involves a group of artists, that one of the characters will be making her own cinema camera. I'll use my Faux Bolex project parts for props. (Still have to get it fully working though.)

This is why I've never put my work on YouTube (and some people were suggesting that I do). I've had enough rejection in my life, I don't need to set myself as a target for more. Who needs to show the world their baby they put a lot of care in to making just to have some dweeb say that it sucks or something.

Me too. Ergonomically it's nice. Holding up to your eye with the loupe is good for both stability and keeping out sunlight from the screen. If it was all programmable, even with a third-party firmware hack, it would be great! I agree again. There's several nifty retro style cameras out now that are fun but just have such crappy image quality. The early days of digital photography had such a variety of shapes that were tried. Kind of like the Burgess Shale fossils. No, but CMOS has come a long way in image quality, global shutter and colour depth which are the things that people like about CCDs. A new camera could be made with a good CMOS sensor. My first miniDV camera was the Canon ZR10. Amazing little thing. Pretty good quality for its time and tiny. (Truly a palmcorder.) I shot lots of stuff with it. https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/dvc673.html If they came out with the same body and features, but recording HD, 2K or 4K in ProRes (or raw) to a card it would be great!

So, the Fujifilm Instax Mini Evo Cinema is about to come out and there are showcases of it on YouTube by the usual influencers. What do you think about it? It appears to be for rich kids to play with and make their cool vertical videos for TikTok, etc. but how would you design it differently to make "real" art with? In redesigning it, I would keep the same shape as it's good. I would have it record in square format in ProRes. Have the ability to add one's own film effects, such as to use OFX plugins like Dehancer and others (if this is possible in real-time) and put them on the dial. Remove the printer to make the whole thing smaller. For me, it's part gimmick and part useful. I can see how in fifteen years, long after it's been discontinued, it being a thing for artists to make art with (much like the Fisher Price Pxlvision camera is now).

There are two different people working on a DIY digital bolex. One is La Faux Bolex (pictured above) who is using an industrial camera that has the same image chip, connected to a Raspberry Pi and is using every open source thing out there. The other is David Bross who mentions in his video that he's in touch with, or working with Joe Rubinstein of the original Digital Bolex company. He doesn't say much about it though. I think it's great that people are working on this again. There were only so many of the original made. If you want the nice colour depth you either pay $12000 or you make your own.

Oh, for sure, eh? I remember forgetting to bring my external monitor cable with me so I used the little built in screen and while I could frame the shot up fine, I didn't see that there were rain drops on the lens until later when I got home. I understand though why they did it, if you have to skimp on something to save money (not just monitor but all the electronics to send a signal to it) to put resources elsewhere (like the image quality), then it makes sense to do it to the monitor. Probably every D16 owner uses an external monitor or EVF because of that. The idea of it being a handheld, one piece thing that you just pick up and start shooting isn't really true. It's too heavy to hold for a long time, the screen is tiny and low resolution (I don't have the shark fin mirror thing so don't know what that's like), there's no built in microphone. Still it's a great camera, amazing image and sound quality making it all worth it. Love it!

I had been searching awhile back for one of his videos I remember watching a few years ago and couldn't find it. He might just be pulling out of being online. I know several friends who have done that, (usually to stay sane.) Maybe he's not into photography anymore in his life. I don't think any of his videos were at all political, they were always about photography and his personal philosophy about it. The thing I got the most from his videos (aside from some pretty thorough reviews of equipment) was him saying that it's okay to go back to a place and take the same picture again and again, improving it each time. This was good advice for me. I guess I had some idea that every picture should be original. (Don't know where I got that idea and wasn't even conscious I held that belief before he helped me change it.)

Looks like someone else is making a "digital bolex". This guy in Paris. https://davidbross.fr/#about Former cinematographer is building one. I don't know what the plan is though, if it's going to be a cottage industry and he'll make and sell them or sell/give away the plans. Like the Faux Bolex guy, he's using the same sensor as the Digital Bolex. In this video he shows his menu system he's working on for it(which resembles Blackmagic's menus). He also has an iOS app that takes stills and video in open gate with the look of Kodak Vision3 500T film stock or Arri Alexa look. I played around with it and it seems fine. https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/digilog-camera/id6753213428

It looks good. The use of iPhones is interesting. The quality is now more than good enough for narrative. I would imagine the camera operator would have been seen as just another YouTube travel and food blogger and ignored. I don't know how "guerrilla" their approach was though. Did they inform the market authorities they were shooting or did they just go and do it? Story wise it seems fine. From my perspective (in a progressive city in another country) the left handed thing is so old fashioned that I wonder if it's truly a thing in Taiwanese culture or just a device for this story.

It looks like even the eagle is wondering why you aren't holding the camera vertically.

This is a good idea. One thing that art school students get are assignments. This provides them with opportunities to explore things and learn from them. If someone isn't in art school (or film school or whatever) they can still give themselves assignments. Set parameters that they have to get creative within, do a series on a theme, etc.