@OzNimbus Don't use the autofocus.
Here's a 5 minute rant video shot in RAW. Shot with the Panny 14-42, and got burned a few times by the focus resetting... I'm shooting my next one on a Switar. For a "one man show" I can't be constantly worried if the focus is going to do something unintentional.
As for the video itself, every singer in the world is going to hate me for this. :)
Thanks for the welcome!
@vicharris - i had actually been here a while ago after a google search but the layout of the site made me think it was a reddit type site and i moved on.
@theconformist - easiest way in resolve is in project settings go to the look up tables tab and choose the open lut folder button and put it in there, then update lists.
@Captainhook What a coincidence! Just downloaded the LUT today and can't seem to figure how to get it to show up in Resolve? Running Windows 8.
welcome Mr Hook =)
@CaptainHook This is a sacred place.
Welcome over here Captain!
@The Captain, hell you're a bit of a local hero in these parts....
How is it i've only just found this place now?
Funny you mention the CRT thing. I've noticed it too. I've yet to see an LCD monitor look as good as my archaic 19inch NEC CRT. I was shocked at how good my Panasonic HMC150 stuff looked on it back in 2010.... and I damn near had a panic attack when I saw the same footage on different lcd monitors.
Every camera is better than the VG20, so is BMPCC.
I'm not sure if this is the right topic, but here's a question.
I'm planning to shoot a feature film for theatrical release. I have a choice of two cameras: the Sony VG20, or the BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera. The lenses are Rokinons, with a LA7200 anamorphic adaptor and various diopters.
Which camera is likely to give better results? What special considerations do I need to take into account if I'm planning for a 2.35:1 aspect ratio?
Naturally, I will be running some tests during pre-production, but would love to hear what others think.
Generally film projectors have three blades so each frame is actually flashed three times, making the refresh rate 72hz
When anything moves with the FS100/Sony Cameras, it's like part of the Sony look outside of the F35 and F65. F55 also looks better.
You can see it on large or small screen.
Also no worries, I'm a rookie as well and just learning. I haven't shot anything major haha.
What are you thoughts shooting for export at 2:3.5.1 as apposed to 16:9?.. Do people like the panavision look for a more cinematic feel or do they find the loss in screen space and ultimately resolution to restrictive?
@kholi Rookie here, so I may have misunderstood. Are you saying when actors or other objects in the frame move too quickly that it looks bad on the big screen? What makes for good motion on a big screen and what makes for bad motion on big screen? I thank you for your patince with this rookie. We just finished shooting feature and are about to start editing, so any tips are much appreciated and will be imolemented.
I thought that might be it, for the FS100 footage I had a GH2 running at the same time, we were trying to decide between a run-n-gun camera for a 24 hour project coming up and were taking it way too seriously (haha), the GH2 Hack's motion looked really good on the same screen, same frame, etc.
Edit here: Now that I think about it, if you have any interest in trying to put something on a large screen, it's a good reason to enter a festival. A lot of them actually take the time to secure venues and projectors, it's really cool to finally have an answer first hand.
Maybe that's got something to do with digital projectors that almost all theatres have nowadays. Film projectors used to project each image twice, and this coupled with the light flicker/pulse, makes for a very pleasing motion on the big screen.
Nah the actual motion of objects moving in frame. Doesn't have to be a quick pan or anything and it's not necessarily worse, but it does seem slightly more apparent. I supposed because the exaggerated blur of Sony cameras can be drastic sometimes.
About the big screen and footage... It's almost like watching your material on a CRT versus an LCD, the difference in the look/feel of it's pretty obvious. A CRT makes everything look really good for various reasons.
@kholi Very interesting stuff. In terms of motion, do you mean that overly quick camera panning looks even worse on big screen? Thanks for sharing your experience. Very cool stuff.
Abel's test is absolutely correct, different filters for different cameras... but, if you have the time google TrueNDs and check out how many cameras they've been tested on.
Hoya's retailers are reporting that Hoya told THEM "ProNDs are comparable to TrueNDs".
The ACCU-ND technology (Hoya)'s what pointed me to them in the first place, it sounded really similar. I've had them on the Pocket camera, but have only shot actual narrative footage with them on the 2.5K (I have a short amount of time with them).
They're great on both cameras, and so far are what I would go with. The Tiffen's actually aren't terribad, just inconsistent (like most ND sets, the Schneiders 1.8's completely weird), and the green cast just irks me to no end now.
This is the wrong topic, but here are some very quickly colored stills from the 2.5K Camera + ProRes + Sigma + Hoya ProND:
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8-f-XPnmOp6c0tzLXlibnNHdTQ&usp=sharing
I can't say what it is, but outside of motion, everything else seems to level out really well in a theatrical setting. The first time I experienced this was at a film festival: our entries screened at the Kodak Theater (now called the Dolby Theater) which has a 60 foot screen... I'm not one hundred percent on this, but I think the Oscars were held here one year?
This was in like 2007 or something, I DP'd a music video for Missy Higgins (you might know her if you're Australian) on the HVX200A + Redrock ADapter (it may have been Letus), Nikon lenses, shot "1080" and 720... and, if you owned an HVX200A then you know the 1080 was kind of pushing the line on what you could call 1080, then you add a Redrock adapter (crazy light loss and image softening) to the mix...
It was crazy how great it looked so massive, even with the macro-blocky/noisey image of the HVX. Totally acceptable quality for a theatrical picture on a lower budget, or more than passable. Hell I think there's a DVXuser post floating around from the night I got home. Haha. So green.
So I think it's the overall theatrical environment where you're focused on what's going on, the great lighting and sound, then the screen adding texture to the image that may not have been there originally. I've since seen various cameras on a large screen right down to GoPros and for the most part, as long as the motion of the camera's okay, it looks good.
The FS100, for example.... I've run some of my footage to a 30 foot screen from a 2K Christie and the motion was just off. It kills the experience if there's any heavy movement, but other than it too looked pretty solid.
Sorry for the essay.
@kholi The one thing I get from the Abel cinema test is that a particular filter will have a different effect depending on the sensor's brand. In your estimation is the Hoya IR filter the best for the bmpcc?
I ask because I have the tiffen ND set and would like to buy a 4X4 IR cut.
I tested it in tungsten as well and it is still completely unusable. Tiffen even admits it. I have no idea how they were able to get those results without serious CC which in my eyes, defeats the purpose of the test. But it's a mute point now. On to the Hoyas.
The thing with the Able test was that they were using strong tungsten lighting (I'm assuming for convenience) while you would normally use NDs with strong daylight. Mitch Gross, who conducted the test, is no longer with Able, so you may want to try to email him directly and see if he remembers.
At this point, though, I think just switching to the Hoyas is a wise decision, although I do like my Schneider Vari-ND.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!