Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Motion & Video => Topic started by: adrjork on September 14, 2015, 08:29:00 pm
-
Hi everybody,
I think to base my work mainly on 4K 10bit 422 Prores footage and I need a workstation to make mainly composing (After Effects) and grading.
Which are the min. requirements for a mac-workstation? Do I need a super-MacPro, or is it possible to do the job with a newer iMac 27?
Thx a lot for your help
-
It is absolutely possible to do this work on a late-model iMac. But if you're using After Effects for 4K, put as much RAM in it as will fit.
-
Lots of RAM and storage. IMO.
Compositing in a video codec ain't the plan, really.
You'd need idealy to use open EXR wich basically
Requires storage.
In a way or another it's always good to be equiped
To handle image sequences, so storage, storage and more
Storage + acceleration cards if you can put money on them.
Best luck.
-
Thanks for your replies.
RAM and storage...
For storage, I'd think 64TB G-Speed Studio XL (a damn lot of money for a freelance!), and for RAM the iMac27 can handle up to only 32TB.
Could be sufficient?
But I remain a bit worried about the software requirements for the codec (my camera will produce 4K 10bit 422 Prores).
I'll use mainly 3 softwares: After Effects, Cinema 4D and Davinci Resolve.
Resolve pdf guide says Mac Pro for 4K workflow (ok, but perhaps they refers to 4K CinemaDNG...) and says iMac27 for HD...
For the other two softwares I don't know the requirements for the specific 4K workflow. And I don't know if i7 is good enough for rendering.
So, are you sure that iMac27 can do the job, or is it barely-barely sufficient?
Thx a lot.
-
Thanks for your replies.
RAM and storage...
For storage, I'd think 64TB G-Speed Studio XL (a damn lot of money for a freelance!), and for RAM the iMac27 can handle up to only 32TB.
Could be sufficient?
But I remain a bit worried about the software requirements for the codec (my camera will produce 4K 10bit 422 Prores).
I'll use mainly 3 softwares: After Effects, Cinema 4D and Davinci Resolve.
Resolve pdf guide says Mac Pro for 4K workflow (ok, but perhaps they refers to 4K CinemaDNG...) and says iMac27 for HD...
For the other two softwares I don't know the requirements for the specific 4K workflow. And I don't know if i7 is good enough for rendering.
So, are you sure that iMac27 can do the job, or is it barely-barely sufficient?
Thx a lot.
From my personal experience, only the editing task on 4k even Prores 422 is not really happening in real time unless you have big muscles Workstation.
(but you can always edit in proxy mode)
The compositing rendering can be quite slow if lots of nodes-layers involved, so as the grading requires power as always did.
The fact is that you can probably do everything on a limited Workstation but "the hard way", maybe freezes, very slow convertions etc...
This fashion of 4k and above that proliferates now in motion as we had the pixel race in still, hides the fact of the requirements needed to work properly
and demands way more power and monetary investment than in still photography.
Many dudes who were seeing Raw as the supreme goal have steped back after the disastrous experience of the requirements needed.
I know quite a few like that who now work in 2K or HD most of the time. In other words: it's demanding yes. I don't know about the current Mac
to be more precise with specs but yes, more or less, beleive what the software requirements say. 4K Dng ain't slower than 4K prores 444.
To some extend, using a metaphor, it reminds a bit the stories of new so called rich bying their first Ferrari. They can afford it certainly, but when it comes to maintain them...
it's another story. So when they are fed-up to have to pay 9000 euros for a yes or a no, they sell them and buy a BMW.
4k is only, IMO, if you really need it professionaly. Even if you are an indy film maker and want to show in festivals, 2k and even HD are allowed and even in the pro sphere,
not all theaters are 4k capable yet and broadcast is HD. So the question is: do you really need it? I mean really really
but if it's just to enjoy yourself in YouTube seeing how crisp and surgical are the skin tones of the girlfriend in YouTube, my advice would be to wisely save the money and buy yourself
a trip to Italy or a new Wheel.
Maybe the Cooter needs 4k because of the client's mental sikness and it's about business. 4K and above are mainly used to reframe and have more flexibility in post for composition.
But I'm sure if Coot could work in Prores HD all the time he would do it.
-
I understand...
The fact is that almost any camera on the market does 4K! Nay, is optimized for 4K! GH4, for example, is almost moire-free in 4K while doesn't work as well in HD.
But not any computer can handle 4K workflow! Only rare machines!
So you have to shoot in 4K and then scale to HD (archiving HD footage only to save space on the external raid!) that is quite... frustrating!
Perhaps I should change my workflow and work with HD only...
If I'd change my mind and work on HD, my workflow could be - just for example:
GH4 to
Atomos Assassins 4K 10bit prores (to take advantage of 10bit HDMI) to
Downscale footage into HD 10bit prores to
External archive, ready to be graded or composed etc.
Do you think it's a good solution for a student/indie?
And... since we have touched the topic "camera"... are you so kind to give me an answer about another doubt?
Prefacing that my shots will be exclusively in natural (LOW)light, which camera you'd prefer to use between:
1. GH4 (10bit Prores with External recorder) + new V-Log L profile + Speed Booster + EF f/1.4 lens
2. GH4 (10bit Prores with External recorder) + new V-Log L profile + mft Nocticron f/1.2 lens
3. A7R II (8bit XAVC internal) + Speed Booster + EF f/1.4 lens
Sorry if it's out of the topic, but I really need an advice guys
Thx a lot
-
My advice is to get some lights. But if you insist on the path you describe, then I'd say the GH4 would win by a nose. The bit depth will help you, as will recording ProRes. And it'll probably have less (fewer?) rolling shutter artifacts.
Get the speedbooster. You can use it on a lot of lenses. It'll kill the sharpness of the lenses, but if you're going to down sample to HD, you'll get most of that back in the process. Add a little sharpening as you downscale and you'll more than get it back.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yes, get lights.
IMO, I find the GH4 footage too Sharp too many times.
But it depends...for architecture, aerials, landcsapes etc...it can be very interesting to get this sort of "surgical" look.
But if for feature film, unless you can set the sharpening to zero, I don't see it. But that's very personal.
What about this to consider too?: https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/es/products/blackmagicmicrocinemacamera
And the video assist investment can be used on others devices later on.
a note: the BMPCC upscaled stands very very well for ex.
The problema we have, and you'll see...it's just the beginning, is that camera manufacturers need to sale and for that they need to create mental needs
every 2 or 3 years, because 4K ain't the end...no. 6k, 8k on the way...
So they will sell 8k cameras to the masses that will require top profesional studios those masse can't afford. Hilarious!
Don't follow the marketing claims.
-
In your original post you talked about 4k ProRes in AE. Later you talk about Cinema 4D and Resolve. I don't use Cinema 4D, but Resolve is a whole different ballgame from AE.
AE has very scalable cache and memory management that lets it handle larger files than your average editing system. You can't work with the footage at 4K unless you buy the 5K iMac, so you can work at 1/4 res or even 1/8th res until you output. If you have trouble with resources at output, you can render to TIFF or DPX or EXR, output in smaller batches, and compress those into ProRes or whatever you like. AE is designed to make small computers work like big computers.
None of that applies to Resolve. The iMac will choke on Resolve. It doesn't have the GPUs to handle 4K for anything more than basic playback at reduced res. For that matter, it really doesn't have the GPU power for HD if you're going to do any real grading. The top-tier GPUs in the nMacPro are just OK at handling 4K footage for input (how OK depends a lot on the codec), but have a VERY hard time if you ask the machine to output 4K. (If you ask it to output 6K it just sits there.)
I also have to say it seems silly to me to put a $7,000 RAID on an iMac. There are a lot of reasons, but the first is: How are you going to back that big boy up?
You're going to have about $9,000 sunk into those two pieces of hardware alone. There are a lot better ways to allocate that money.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I think this thread, or at least in the sense I'd take it personaly, is good to enquire a bit on purpose-mediums.
If you do the Marvels, Star Wars and all the Hollywood entertainment (bread and circus) saga, then 3D, 4K, even 50K is great.
You want to see in ultra high def the shiny reflect on the hero's Shell, or the Little flashing lights on the space battleship with particules and explosions and so on
That's entertainment.
Now, if you're goal is doing serious stuff, you don't need all that BS.
Just take a look at Avedon's generation fashion photographers...there were a few star over there. You can name at least 10 big names.
Where are they now with their 60Mpx cameras?
Get a BM or even this digital Bolex that delivers a fantastic organic look. That's all you'd need. IMO.
There is a huge marketing pressure everywhere to incitate people to buy things they do not need nor will be able to afford all the chain devices to work well.
Don't fall in that trap.
-
@D Fuller about GH4:
I agree with you Mr. D Fuller.
I've seen a comparison lowlight test between GH4 and A7R II made by Andrew Reid (http://www.eoshd.com/2015/08/panasonic-gh4-vs-sony-a7r-ii-low-light-speed-booster-shootout/). Both cameras are equiped with Speed Booster, and the A7R II seems win undoubtedly, but the Sony (S-Log, 8bit) mounted a f/1.4 lens, while the GH4 (without V-Log, and only 8bit) mounted a f/2 lens. I think that with a really fast lens (f/1.2), the new V-Log (plus 2 stops) and 10bit recording, the GH4 can match the sony.
Just a question (very crucial for me): you say that speedboster is a sharpness killer. I thought that detailed images could balance lowlight conditions (or poor lowlight camera performance) avoiding noise. I mean: clearer image for less noise. Isn't so? Please give me your opinion. Thx
@fredjeang2 about the microcamera:
The reason of GH4 (or Sony) is that I'm searching for an hybrid camera because I'd use it also for stills. But anyway thank you for your advice, I didn't see this microcamera, very interesting!
@D fuller about Davinci:
I agree with you again, Mr. D Fuller. So, Let say that After Effects and Cinema 4D are my fundamental needs (the course I'm going to follow requires these two softwares), but for grading flat log footage what could I use? In your opinion Colorista could do a good job with HD footage? And as archive, what RAID can I use to archive but also directly work with HD 10bit Prores footage? Could be sufficient a G-Speed Q via USB3 or via thunderbolt/sata adapter?
Thx for your help
P.S. Mr. fredjeang2 I agree completely with your last post ;)
-
I'm simply Fred.
But you are cutting in Premiere Pro if I understand?
Because if you're using AE it sounds natural. Then there is a grading App within the suite no? (is it the so called Speedgrade?)
If cut on Avid or FCP7 look at Baselight editions.
Resolve lite, staying HD, seems to me the most powerfull for free.
If you want to grade 4k there is a very interesting rental plan option from Assimilate Scratch (I use it)
and you pay what you use. Not cheap cheap but affordable.
However, the learning curve in Scratch is a bit more complex than Resolve.(and requirements are similar to Resolve)
-
Thx Fred,
I'd use actually FCPX. Really, up to now, I have always graded in After Effects (also because Resolve lite is very ram demanding and without noise reduction, and up to now I've only an old 4GB-ram Santarosa MacBook Pro). I'll look for Assimilate Scratch and Baselight editions (I didn't know them).
-
Sorry guys if I insist, but your opinion about the sharpness question is quite important for me:
More sharpness helps images in lowlight conditions (details avoid noise)? Or smooth lenses work as de-noiser?
-
Just a question (very crucial for me): you say that speedboster is a sharpness killer. I thought that detailed images could balance lowlight conditions (or poor lowlight camera performance) avoiding noise. I mean: clearer image for less noise. Isn't so? Please give me your opinion. Thx
All camera choices are a series of trade-offs. Detailed images and noise-free images are two different goals altogether. They don't have much to so with each other. Sharpness and detail are also different things. Speed Boosters reduce the sharpness of lenses. But by providing more light to the sensor, they do effectively reduce noise, all other things being equal.
I agree with you again, Mr. D Fuller. So, Let say that After Effects and Cinema 4D are my fundamental needs (the course I'm going to follow requires these two softwares), but for grading flat log footage what could I use? In your opinion Colorista could do a good job with HD footage?
If you have, as Fred suggests, the Adobe suite, then you should take a good look at Speedgrade. It's a good tool. You can get a lot done with it. I don't like Colorista much, and at least when I tried it, it was a resource hog.
And as archive, what RAID can I use to archive but also directly work with HD 10bit Prores footage? Could be sufficient a G-Speed Q via USB3 or via thunderbolt/sata adapter?
You need a RAID to do much in post-production. You need it for the speed more than anything else. But a lot of space helps too. But it seems unlikely that you need a 64TB RAID. The G-speed devices are probably quite good (I have no experience with it) but they come in much smaller sizes. Areca makes very good Thunderbolt 2 RAID enclosures as well. You can buy them empty and put whatever drives you like inside.
We could help you a lot more if you would tell us more about what you're trying to do. Please don't take this wrong, but you sound like you're just starting to do video, and yet you are talking about buying a massive-capacity RAID that would serve a feature film. It's confusing. You're talking about making films with no light. It's confusing.
-
Sorry guys if I insist, but your opinion about the sharpness question is quite important for me:
More sharpness helps images in lowlight conditions (details avoid noise)? Or smooth lenses work as de-noiser?
No. More sharpness does not help images to be less noisy. (I think that's what you're asking.)
Noise has nothing to do with lenses. It is a characteristic of sensors.
Noise destroys sharpness, but sharpness does not affect noise. Light affects noise. More light on the sensor produces images that are above the noise floor, and so are less noisy. (That's why you should think about lights.)
-
Mr. D Fuller you are right: it's confusing!
The fact is that I'm in a Conservatory course of video-composition for music. The course is based on After Effects during the first year, and on Cinema 4D during the second year. During this pair of months, before the course begins, my Prof asked to me to buy a camera (video and stills) to make practice by myself and search for my taste. Naturally I dream to try everything: try to shot poetic shorts in Sokurov's style (!) but also try to shot something more... clinic (!!) to use with Cinema 4D.
So I started to compare cameras that were good in lowlight (Sokurov, Bartas, Tarr are my models!) but also able to produce detailed images (to use with Cinema 4D). A camera for all the seasons ;)
At last I wondered what kind of Mac could handle the footage of that camera... then my hell began ;)
-
Listen to D Fuller. (by the way D is for Dave?)
He knows what he is talking about.
Best to dowscale your 4k "needs" and invest in light,
And this light investment will still be operative in 10 years
While the GH4 is obsolete next year...
Because instead of a camera that can shoot clean files
At 12000isos, but without lightning, no control nor shape
Will be possible. So you'll get flat images without personality.
Light and audio are far more important to consider than
Resolution aspects. If audio fails, the all falls appart.
If there is no DP work, it's not going to catch emotionaly.
Look, I'd like to "shake you" a bit, in a constructive way.
IMO you are wanting the impossible for the moment.
It's like you feel in desperate need to get it right once
For awhile and got the right kit that will fullfill needs that
Are so far too vagues (because you're starting) and beleive me,
Those needs will change (very fast) as long as you get
More experienced.
Take for sure that the today's investment is a short term one.
Also, it seems that you have a limited budget, wich is fine.
But it is very important, really really important, that you
Learn to NOT be contaminated by internet imputs AND
Camera makers carots...you don't want to be the donky
That bites, because the carot is going to be always a step
Ahead you and you'll never reach it.
I think I had this conversation with D. Fuller some time ago,
On the importance to realise that 90% of internet imputs
By so called "knowledgeable people" are actually crap,
Collective illusions, concepts wrongly understood etc etc...
You need to figure-out who knows, and there are a very few.
Not a long time ago, I opened a thread about ACES in the
Red forum because I was fed-up of contradictory and vague
Imputs that circulate in internet. Secretly, I was hopping
That Graeme Natress would post becsuse he is mostly
The guy I wanted to listen to, and he did, thankfully.
Red forum is generally a place frequented by pros. But even
There, on a delicate subject like ACES, apart from Graeme,
2 or 3 people (alwayd the same dudes) understood what was
Going on while the rest was completly lost and confused.
This gives you an idea about the real knowledge that abunds
In internet. Be critical, make-up your own mind and DO NOT
Follow fashions. 4k fashion, and so on.
IMO, if you get a great HD workflow, with a camera that
Can shoot Prores or cinema DNG in 1080, (or a magic lantern)
you'll be happy, no hassles, stable workflow, and no files
Falling apart in post. That's much much better than 4k
On the cheap.
What you need right now is to practise, practise and
Above all enjoy. The dilema you ask for: 4k + limited workstation
+ no lights + wanting organic and clinic looks + low budget
Is going to give you lots of hassles and then discouragement.
This does not bring peace.
So, build yourself a more humble workflow for the moment,
But a top one. great HD. And work work workfrom here,
And then, while you progress, your real needs will get clearer.
You'll learn what's really important for you and you'll be
Able to make-up your mind wisedly instead of this pressure
You are putting on your shoulders right now.
Learn the lightning instead of the 4k. Do something fluid.
Doable.
Also, if your goal is to become good at compositing for ex,
And eventually get work in the future, in the learning
Process you really don't want the workstation that is so
Stressed that it will freeze or be too slow. Because once
You adquire knowledge, it's applicable in 4k, 6k or 2000k.
So you want stability and speed in the learning process so
That it does not become an obstacle.
Don't use credit! You'll have bills. Get what you can
Afford. Your equipment would belong to the bank if
You put yourself in such situation. Always cash.
That requires discipline.
I'm not one who can give advices on shooting because
My territory is post prod, but you got a good example
In this forum with Morgan Moore. He started with very little,
Put himself at work, then evolved WHILE DOING, and now
He starts to have his videos broadcasted, and dp a film that
Compeat in festivals. That's the path.
Step by step, no worries on sharpness and resolution and
All that crap illusions for the masses.
Don't be in slavery with specs. When you get experienced,
You'll know. And if your friend has a 4k workflow because
He may be a daddy'son (daddy pays the bills), don't listen,
Don't try to be the same, to get the same because
Everyone has 4k. No. Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
-
don't build a dyi system. Call a company like promax http://promax.com/
True! I did that too this year and very very happy.
And when it comes to effects, look into the market with a sharp pencil, because special effects fees have fallen to the floor. I could drive you through west hollywood and Santa Monica and show you the empty buildings of editorial and effects companies, that prior to 2008 were busting at the seams with work.
The Detroit syndrom in Hollywood too?...quite frightening!! It seems that this is happening too in the colorist craft.
With Resolve lite everyone is a colorist init?...
Are we going to a deprofessionalization? or despecialization? Question I don't have the answer.
As you pointed, being really good at one thing is already difficult, being good at 2 things is rare, and being average at 8 things (I story-board, I direct, I shoot, I DIT, I DP I edit, I FX, I color), is what seems to be where the wind is blowing from. But a day is 24 hours and we need a life.
And yeah...when 8K is going to point its nose, I don't see it. It's going to be completly surreal.
(https://informitv.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/8KSuperHi-Vision.jpg)
We need it! We want it!
-
I take it you have a concept of stills.
Say a file from a D3 or something.. downscale it to 1080 px and it is sharp sharp.
Most 'HD" cameras (1080) do not create an image that is even close to this sharp.
So to get HD that is actually that sharp you will be needing a '4k' consumer camera.
I own 2 '4k' cameras (gh4, no recorder, and FS7) both make very very nice HD, but not really actually sharp 4k
I would therefore consider these cameras well suited for 'acquire 4k, work HD'
To actually deliver 4k that looks something like 4k from a still you will be needing a Red or an Alexa I guess.
S
-
Dear guys, thanks a lot for your attention and your advices! You have finally convinced me. I'll start with a camera + a lens and make practice. I'll work on a (up to) HD workflow. And I'll continue to use my 8-years old MacBookPro with proxies and low-resolution previews. Only once I'll feel the need for a bigger station I'll contact ProMax or something similar. (My wife thanks you for getting me back on the right path.)
Now, let re-start: I'm starting with this course; the purpose of the course is forming a no-better specified video artist for art-music composition. I dream to try different things (trying to imitate my very different heroes: both Few of Us* and Tachiguishi-Retsuden** styles), but before dreaming I've to start learning the basic.
So, just for making the first step: the Camera. Do you think that GH4 could be a good camera for me (as a beginner that could need stills and video) or other? (Anyway I'd use it as suggested by Mr. Morgan_Moore: exclusively for downscaling purpose.)
Thanks again.
*) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWTyHajzbFI
**) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0jXyZ_ClCE
-
I see hassles.
You will need yes or yes to transcode all your gh4 footage
Previous to post-prod because you won't be able to
Work in 4k anyway.
This is a huge burden.
Then, your transcodes, assuming they are the hd proxies
Will have to keep the same filename and timecode and
So on to not mess with the relinks to original footage.
Big big mess on the corner.
Or, you'd use the gh4 in hd from capture. But then what's
The point of a 4k capable camera if you'd use hd?
Think of this: it's not going to be: "cool, I shoot 4k that I
Will deliver in hd". No no no...you won't even be able to
Edit those gh4 files natively on a 8 years old workstation
Nor probably even reviewing them.
So, or you make your wife angry, and buy yourself a top
Workstation, or is forget about 4k. Sorry if that sounds too
Reasonable but that's the truth.
But think of it like Julius Cesar. When they sent him to Spain
Some people of his surrounding laughed at him, pointing
That he was sended to a redneck area without future.
And he answered: "I prefer to be the first between those guys
Than the lastest in Rome".
In other words: better a good hd workflow than a 4k on the cheap.
So it's not really a disgrace but a temporal adaptation.
Also, Morgan pointed a fact: still and video footage aren't
Really matching.
There is another way: forget about a 4k cam to downscale
And buy a second-hand HD camera instead like the BMPCC
Then...yes invest in an external recording device
Integrated with the monitor display like the Atomos or maybe
The video assist from BM (cheaper).
That way, you would record prores proxies + prores 422 or more
At the same time. No convertion. 2 files recorded simultaneously.
So you'd use the proxies for editing and then relink to high res
When needed. So you'll be in the danger zone (high quality prores)
Just in the end of the all process.
And for stills, instead of using still from a still camera, that
Will not have consistency with the footage and will oblige you
To spend time on it, grab stills directly from the camera footage.
That way, you'll have consistency.
The BM hd cameras stands very well 2k delivery for DCP
I pointed out the BM hd cams but I'm sure there are more
Options out there. However, avoid avchd kind of codecs.
A good prores or dnxhd is safe.
-
I have a GH4 and it is very simple to transcode 4k footy with 1080 setting in DaVinci.
Is it a good camera? Im not sure yet.. the images are very nice at F2 or 1.4 so that is my 50mm or SLRmagic 12mm, at 200 ISO - really the high iso (mixed with a bit of under exposure) can come out not so well.
For learning video and taking stills I might go with a Canon or Nikon, but the footage is a bit soft and 4-2-0 does not flex in post at least with APS sensor the lenses seem simpler.. but then there is the booster (more money)
The Gh4 has the huge (to me) bonus of the (now cheap) yag box which can use SDI monitor, or XLR microphones.. Id pick it over a sony A7s but Im not sure that a $600 used CaNikon is not a better place to start.
Really there are infinite options.. none of them good! Cheap = crap, Expensive (like Red) = too heavy!
I have an FS7.. it is lighter than Red but still too heavy - the new Sony FS5 looks light and OK codec with ND and XLR - but probbly an expensive place to start and no stills facility.
I think a good place to start is a simple DSLR with a mic input (and mic level not auto), learn to shoot then make a choice on a more expensive camera???
You will make that choice as the features you need become apparent - some are happy with external audio, odd chip sizes, no ND etc. but some find this ruins their workflow/life.
S
-
Be aware that making a stills camera 'ready for video'.. nice ND filters, an XLR sound box, rigs and stuff can get expensive very fast.. soon you have spent the money you would have spend on a used C100 or a new Sony FS5 and just have a bunch of cables and loose bolts that drive you so mad you buy a C100/FS5 anyway!
S
-
Be aware that making a stills camera 'ready for video'.. nice ND filters, an XLR sound box, rigs and stuff can get expensive very fast.. soon you have spent the money you would have spend on a used C100 or a new Sony FS5 and just have a bunch of cables and loose bolts that drive you so mad you buy a C100/FS5 anyway!
S
Lol! So true!!
-
Just curious... Between an old C100 (internal codec) and a BMCC2.5k, what do you prefer guys?
And about ProMax... I've found here in my place a shop that configures OSX compatible machines (we could say "hackintosh") that are power/cost really damn effective and run OSX. Do you think it's a good solution?
-
I think Morgan pointed an interested fact (and dilema).
It's between a rock and a hard place because
Or we got a completly fragmentated set-up, unpractical
And extremely annoying, or it's a proper video camera.
The dilema, as far as I know, is that what looks cheap
At first (still cameras rigged for video) ends to be expensive,
Heavy and big to make the all lego works properly...
As Morgan pointed,
And the proper video cameras like the Alexa etc...are expensive.
So is there a decent compromise between boths?
A proper video camera, ergonomicaly and technically
Made for motion that shoot good files like Prores HQ,
But at the same time affordable and manegeable in post?
Yes. But nothing is perfect because the golden rule in
This material world is that what's good is expensive.
You'll have to sacrifice something and make a balance.
Morgan's right about HDMI in the thread of video assist.
It sucks. But...the video assist is 1/2 the price of more
Robust solutions and fullfill the need it's made for.
Price to pay: robustness.
My personal imput, putting myself on your case, would be
To purchase a second-hand BMPCC or their new micro camera
In the link I put before, then a video assist, and tons of batteries.
And an external recorder like a Zoom H4 second-hand also.
A cage for the BMPCC costs 100 bucks and the all thing
Will not be too messy, nor too unpractical, nor too fragile...
Ok, not a proper motion camera as Morgan would like,
And he is right, but
Not dslr garbage either.
Get 2 micro 4-3 lenses permanently
Mounted with variable ND filters.
For about 2000-2500 bucks you're good to go. About same
Cost as the C100.
You'd shoot prores hq + prores proxies at the same time.
The files from the BM are going to be pretier, more "cine like"
And more robust in post than the C100
But the C100 is a real motion camera.
So or is it good IQ and stability in post with the BM,
And remember that you will be able to shoot Raw also
So when you upgrade your workstation you'll have raw files.
But you sacrify ergonomic, or...you put ergonomic on first
Place and get AVCHD in low bitrate...
No miracle I'm afraid.
Sure there are more solutions out there without breaking
The bank account.
-
I'm probably the smallest guy of this forum as I height
The same as Al Paccino and quite look like him too...
I imagined the Cooter tall, maybe because he's not fat
Wich gives the sensarion of altitude.
But hey, small guys we have an advantage over tall guys:
We're fast!
James, you're right about prefering 4k over 2 but all turns about the
Fact that the thread's opener has not the budget to build
A complete 4k compliant system. The bills would jump
At the speed of light and for someone who's more or less
Starting it's absurd. Really.
In terms of cameras, I think that both Morgan and James
Are right.
I do too hate those little buttons of video cameras, their
Video codecs and file looks, and
Also hate the mess in cablery, weight and lack of ergonomics,
Myriad of accessories and mecano or lego like rigging stuff..
For godness shake! Is it that difficult for camera makers
To do something that would meet both requirements?
Bloody hell. Were the f....k are the designers and what
They are payed for?
I don't see why we couldn't get something the size of
A Phase one camera with integrated evf that shoot prores 444
With built-in nd, proper audio connect and already rigged to
Receive accessories, that weights little and sold with a
Dedicated Pelican case etc...
That's beyond my understanding.
-
Well, to allow us to make friends in forums I suppose ;)
I'm impressed by the amount of stimulation that I'm getting here from you all guys! Thanks really.
Anyway...
What about my former dounbt about hackintosh: do you think it's a good solution to have a more cost-effective machine (as I said I've found here in my place a shop that configures OSX compatible machines). It seems good to me. Or is it better to go for ProMax only?
-
ProMax says to me they builds only Windows-based workstations. No hackintosh. (I have always been afraid of Windows... but perhaps I've to change my mind...)
-
... or moved on to Avid.
BC
Yeah...the most unintuitive NLE ever built!
I see more and more dudes cutting directly in Nuke
(with its complementary app) and Resolve 12 is an
Avid killer, destroyer, bomber, eliminator, evaporator..
Just kidding...
http://www.clintonharn.com/?p=529
-
Cooter.. Morgan also doesn't like heavy cameras, though they shoot smoother than a small lightweight cameras and he doesn't like filters, but I have faders for all my lenses and as long as there good quality I've had few problems using faders.
Adjork
No one here is an idiot.. what you are seeing is that different people have different ways of working, and different needs.
If I fly usually my client wont pay for extra bags.. so Im on a camera kit you can get in a ThinkTank and a bag in the hold with a tripod and spare underwear and a light..(yes even the BBC wont fund extra bagage at the lower level).. Coots moves with four guys and 10 cases (or more!)
So I like light cameras not 'cos I cant shoulder the heavy big ones.. it is because they eat my Thinktank
I do maybe more 'actuality' (running after live action) than Coots - so I might follow someone from EXT to INT and need to just clunk the ND filter wheel out to keep shooting - on more 'formal' shoots there is time to swap filters. (I shot a feature on a BMC and had an A/C to swap filters for me.. no problem :) )
Also Faders (polarizing ND filters) do horrid things to thin codec cameras (like the FS100 I owned) - now a fader might make your footage a little green.. but if you are shooting raw on a Red One then it is easy to correct.
So different things work for different setups.
----
The reason I suggest buying a $500 DSLR or GH2 is that you should buy it in the knowledge that in 3 months you will sell it and buy what you actually want.
Those three months you will find what is important to you.. sound? zoom lenses? built in ND? amazing files? Large chip size? Size? Long roll time with no overheat or cards full? High ISO?
Once you have shot a little your needs will become clear to you.. and you might go for a
Pocket BM (tiny - great file, shitty connectors awful sound),
a used Red One (heavy - greatest file for the dollar?)
a sony FS5 (OK file, full featured video camera)
A7s (Everything horrid but the ISO!)
or something else.
Each has it's place. None is perfect. None offers the whole list.
S
-
No one here is an idiot.. what you are seeing is that different people have different ways of working, and different needs.
Yes, it's the first thing I understood in this discussion ;)
-
Dear guys, as I said to Mr. Morgan Moore in another thread, I think I made a decision: I'm going to buy the GH4.
I think to start with a GH4 and just one lens: the 42.5 Nocticron f/1.2.
When I'll feel +/- ready to begin shooting something decent, I'll buy the Atomos Shogun and a microphone (together with a cost-effective hackintosh workstation).
Just a question about ND filters: someone recommends the practical Xume Adapters kit with the Genus Eclipse variable ND filter, but others say that GH4 needs for an IR filter too when ND is on.
Do you think:
1. Is it better a non-variable filter than a variable one?
2. Is it better an IRND filter than ND + IR filters?
3. Genus Eclipse alone (without IR) is good anyway?
Thanks a lot.
-
I suggest to consider those following points,
And sorry to be again the buzzbreaker
(you're going to end to hate me) but I think your
Choice is not really the best.
If Michael Reichmann sees this, I'd like him to
Comment on the following, because if my memory's
Correct he pointed it a long time ago: there is a strange
Thing with the micro4/3 mount is that it seems that
The benefits to put expensive lenses (let's say like the
Leica M line) does not bring better IQ. This is something
I've been seeing over and over again with the m4/3, and
Others have also pointed it.
Actually I did in the past some testings with cine lenses
From the Konvas cameras that can be bought in ebay for
About 150 bucks and they performed as well if not better
Than much much more expensive glasses.
Why? I ignore, but for some reasons, probably the sensor size,
m4/3 is a world in itself and you don't need to spend 2000 bucks
And above to get optimal IQ.
Please, if some knowledgeable people could comment
On this point it would be nice.
Also, your going to work with 80mm ish with the lens
You want to buy. Therefore the problem of stability can
Not be ignored. You'll need a serious rig and a very stable
Tripod like a Vitten Vision. The focal length choosen is
Problematic in those aspects and very fast, when you'll be
Fed-up of a footage that shakes like a lap dancer chick,
You'll end to buy a wide lens or have to spend 3000 more
Bucks in good tripod (expensive!) and rig.
My advice would be to elect a wider focal at first.
So we are again in what Morgan and Coot said. What looks
Cheap and affordable will soon be more and more bills.
Then all you'll have will be fragmentated equipment that
You will not sell in ebay because the gh5 or 6 will be available
And as those are consummer cams made to last 2 or 3 years.
And you'll think "why the hell I didn't buy at first..."
Those are the kind of lenses you might want to look at
For micro 4/3: http://www.veydra.com/
They are afforbable, small and more suitable for motion.
Actually they are cine lenses.
But you'll get for 200 bucks a lens, a very good IQ with
The Konvas lenses, made by the soviets in the cold war
Era for their 35mm Cine cameras. In Oct18 or 19 mount
And pro adapters are available in ebay.
Now the gh4. It's a consummer camera, right? Obsolete
In 2 years, with the need of legorig (i should pattent this
Expression), not exactly "filmic look", not exactly small, nor big,
Nor bad nor great, nor....what else?
It's interesting to note the fact that the Cooter's Red1s are
Still fully in service and not obsoletes after those years
While the myriad of B cams he tried were changed every
Year or so.
In the end, all those consummer cameras are just short
Terms investment and in the end, in a few years you spent
The same as if you bought directly a pro equipment.
That's the thing camera makers don't want you to realise.
We are living in a hyperconsumist society. Needs have to
Be created with marketing bombings to the masses so
They are constantly unsatisfied and constantly buying
The next generation gear that gives momentany satisfaction,
One week or 2. Then they'll feel the need of "the magical
Update". Gh4, Sony alpha, 4k logos...are just that.
Professional gear are made to last and work for years.
In the end you'll pay the same.
Big difference.
So step-away from consummer equipment and invest
In pro gear from the very beginning.
Seriously, keeping the m4/3 mount, I'd go with the 900euros
Blackmagic micro camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41zAfvdsUJs.
Smaller, easier to rig, professional,
With a much better codec and Raw. + the video assist + cage +
Batteries, for about 2000 your done and you record 2 files
Flavour at the same time wich is superb.
Also, the video assist will work on later cameras.
On top of it, I'd mount Konvas or Veydra glasses and forget
Completly the hybrid current plastiquish lenses of Pana-Oly.
Actually buy lenses of a 35mm that you'll be able to
Reuse on others cameras sensor size if you switch later.
Now you can hate me. ;D
-
Yeah...the most unintuitive NLE ever built!
Hmmm... (Warning, going off-topic for a moment...)
I see this said all the time and I have never understood it. Back in 1993, when I bought my first Avid, it was supposed to come with a day of training. The system arrived with a tech who helped our engineers set it up (in those days an edit suite required an on-staff engineer) but the trainer was sick, so she didn't show up until several days later. By the time she showed up, I had cut a 30-minute program and exported the list to our Paltex editor for on-line. No training. First NLE I ever used. I looked at the screen and did what was obvious. Even the EDL export was completely logical.
So I've never understood the "not intuitive" comments. But that's just me. YMMV.
-
Hmmm... (Warning, going off-topic for a moment...)
I see this said all the time and I have never understood it. Back in 1993, when I bought my first Avid, it was supposed to come with a day of training. The system arrived with a tech who helped our engineers set it up (in those days an edit suite required an on-staff engineer) but the trainer was sick, so she didn't show up until several days later. By the time she showed up, I had cut a 30-minute program and exported the list to our Paltex editor for on-line. No training. First NLE I ever used. I looked at the screen and did what was obvious. Even the EDL export was completely logical.
So I've never understood the "not intuitive" comments. But that's just me. YMMV.
I stand on my position.
I've been cutting during 3 years in MC and went quite far in the training and the tricks behind the tricks of its implementation. And no Dave. May it's robust, excellent media management etc...and would agree. But it's completly unintuitive (apart from basic editing).
This is a conversation I had several time with M.P who speaks french (don't writte his name here on purpose because he his working but you know who I am reffering to), who is one of the most knowledgeable guy on M.C and helps thousands of people to overcome typical editing issues as well as typical Avid "way" >:( in Red forum and the cow and himself says that it is everything except intuitive.
In fact, what happens is that the "old folks" have lived with it and get used to each software generation so it seems "natural" for them.
And as you are old folk (do not mean old, grey hair and big belly ;D), well you are used to it for decades. For the new generation, it's another story.
Look, Avid is the standart here in broadcast and a big part of film industry also. And I do not know just one kid who is studdying motion who is learning it, despite they perfectly know it's the standart. Not one! They all learn PP, FCP aix, Smoke...and the guys at Avid are very aware of it because they told me so and even many of the employees thinks that the days of MC are numberded
in a way or another. They will probably do the same as EditShare, center on media management solutions.
Kids hate it. Too tedius, extremely well featured but not intuitive for this generation. Stay away 3 or 4 months from an Avid seat and when you're back it's..."oh well...how did I...f...k"
and it takes an entire day to just remember it's tricks and backstage to be back at the require speed. No sir! that's not 2015.
Why so many people went FCP at the Golden age? up to 7th
Because it was more simple and offered the same (more or less).
I remember a 10 years avid editor old folk who didn't remember the custom sift implementation after it's summer hollydays and it made me do a video on this custom sift stuff.
Tell me why do you have to unsift and the refresh the sequence when you do an edit decisión? 3 steps intead of one. That's Avid. What can be done in 1 step costs 3.
ok, some would say, and I won't disagree completly, that what looks extra steps are often necessary to "secure" the tasks if done in a logical way. Yes. But they went too far on this philosophy IMO.
even Protools...you can't imagine the number of dudes I know in the music industry, and I know quite a few, who have switched to reapper-steinberg. A lot of people! For the same reason, not for costs.
I wish Avid the best, because there are Jobs involved, but man! this is 90's way of thinking.
To some extend Avid reminds me Arri. Now... are we living in an Arri land for long or is it moving years after years to a Blackmagic-Red land?
MC is great, it can be fast in the hand of a trained editor, but it's not intuive. Sorry. its learning curve is way more complicated than any other NLE without being significantly better except
in media management robustness. (and I'm not even sure of it)
So, if Thelma cut a multi-million dollar Scorcese movie on Lightworks for decades, and LW is inuitive and way way faster even without the console, I cut my 1000 dollar movies on LW.
Come on Dave! you know I'm not being foolish here.
Sorry adrjork for being out of topic. Here a link showing exclusively BMPCC footage: https://vimeo.com/109244789
Is that Sharp enough?
And by the way: does someone has a clue why the Arri rosette and the Red ones are different? Sometimes I'm amazed by this industry standarts...indeed.
-
Well, it seems to me that any of you, nice guys, has a position based on own style and needs.
BMCs seems wonderful, but perhaps is particular conditions, mainly expressing their whole potential in pro's hands.
I don't feel up to handle a little-pro cam like that, with all-manual lenses and without stabilization. And I'd like to try to take stills too.
Mr. Morgan Moore's advice was GH2. I agree with him. GH4 is just the double of an used-hacked GH2 (and I must say that I prefer the image of GH4). So for my needs at the moment it seems a good compromise.
But it would be interesting to reflect on the lens: Fred, you say Veydra, but are not cheap: +/- 900$ per lens. And as you know I'm a beginner, so Veydra build all-manual lenses without stabilization. Nocticron has stabilization and is fast.
Tell me guys if I'm wrong: GH4 is ISO800 based, isn't a low-light champion, and I'd use it without adding light, so with a f/1.2 + a crop factor of 2.3 I should obtain simply a reasonably fast cam. 42.5mm become more than 85mm on GH4, so yes it's a potrait/tele lens that should give a reasonably shallow d.o.f. And with IS I should not be worried about shaking: a monopod should be enough.
Do you think I'm completely wrong?
And what about IR filter question?
Someone says that GH4 needs for an IR filter too when ND is on.
I'd go for two filters with Xume Adapters: Genus Eclipse variable ND + Tiffen water white IR.
I'd keep IR always on, also indoor, just to protect lens from dust, is it a good idea or there is any downside?
Thanks all guys.
-
I don't know if the lens you describe (the nocticron) is a still photography lens. Because you'll have breathing in motion, and that's not nice.
Not sure either if the in-stab will be enough in this focal length. (this I don't know)
The Veydra are good bang for the buck. How much is your nocticron?
-
...Yes, Nocticron is perhap the most expensive m43 lens, you are right Fred ;)
-
Well, it seems to me that any of you, nice guys, has a position based on own style and needs.
Of course we do. One of the most valuable things you need to develop in a creative business is a point of view. We all have them. We're passionate about them. One of the most valuable things you can develop as a human being is the ability to recognize that not everyone shares your point of view, and that's OK. The world is better for that, but it can make things a bit confusing.
BMCs seems wonderful, but perhaps is particular conditions, mainly expressing their whole potential in pro's hands.
I don't feel up to handle a little-pro cam like that, with all-manual lenses and without stabilization. And I'd like to try to take stills too.
Mr. Morgan Moore's advice was GH2. I agree with him. GH4 is just the double of an used-hacked GH2 (and I must say that I prefer the image of GH4). So for my needs at the moment it seems a good compromise.
I think it is a good compromise. I'm still not sure what you really want from the camera. From what you've said, it sounds like you're taking a course that is focussed on compositing and CG, where the images are raw material for your post work. So you're not really trying to become a cinematographer at this point, but want to be able to shoot some images to work with in the CG world. Is that close?
If it is, then the GH4 seems a good choice. Another good choice would be a Canon 70D. Both will take good stills. Both have a good selection of lenses available for modest costs. Neither records to a very robust codec, so grading will be limited with either. But both will be easier than most to keep in focus, and that will turn out to be one of your biggest challenges if you shoot the way you've described.
But it would be interesting to reflect on the lens: Fred, you say Veydra, but are not cheap: +/- 900$ per lens. And as you know I'm a beginner, so Veydra build all-manual lenses without stabilization. Nocticron has stabilization and is fast.
So this lens is pretty good. It's not a cinema lens, but it ought to be OK. That is, if I'm correct in what I guessed above about what you want to do. (for now) If you are really interested in cinematography, I'd suggest you think about a non-stabilized lens. Because if you're intersted in cinematography, you need to learn how to handle a camera, and when it needs support (tripod), and a host of things that will be masked by stabilization. Some things that will be sorta OK with stabilization will be bloody awful without, and you'll learn from that. (just a suggestion)
But I think you're going to want another lens. Either instead of or in addition to. That focal length is lovely, but you're going to want a wide. Something in the 14-18mm range. It's just really hard to make a movie with just a short tele. Everything can't be closeups, and there's often not enough room to move back far enough with a lens that has that angls of view. That wider lens will also be a lot easier to hold steady and keep focussed, so if you plan on moving with the camera at all, you'll find it helps. Now, you could get two lenses or find a zoom that covers something like the 14-40 range and get both in one, but it won't be quite as fast.
Tell me guys if I'm wrong: GH4 is ISO800 based, isn't a low-light champion, and I'd use it without adding light, so with a f/1.2 + a crop factor of 2.3 I should obtain simply a reasonably fast cam. 42.5mm become more than 85mm on GH4, so yes it's a potrait/tele lens that should give a reasonably shallow d.o.f. And with IS I should not be worried about shaking: a monopod should be enough.
Do you think I'm completely wrong?
Yes. You are completely wrong about not needing a tripod. You need a tripod. Not for every shot, but often. Even more if you're using the material for compositing, because you'll find that you need to shoot identically-framed plates quite often, and you just can't do that hand-held or from a mono-pod.
Your insistence on not using lights is also wrong. (Now in this, youare seeing my point of view. Take it or leave it as you wish.) Cinematography is the art of controling a movable camera and light. If you don't control the light, you are giving up half of the art. You don't need a lot of lights. But you do need some, or you will not get the images you want, you'll have to settle for what was there. Take a look at some of BCooter's images on this site. He is a master of using available light and adding just enough to it to make it beautiful. sometimes that's one 150-watt Inkie. Sometimes it's a half-dozen HMIs.
And what about IR filter question?
Someone says that GH4 needs for an IR filter too when ND is on.
I'd go for two filters with Xume Adapters: Genus Eclipse variable ND + Tiffen water white IR.
I'd keep IR always on, also indoor, just to protect lens from dust, is it a good idea or there is any downside?
Don't use an IR filter for lens protection. They are usually quite reflective, and you'll get ghosting if you put another filter on top of it. I don't know the GH4 well enough to know if IR is an issue with that camera or not. I'd suggest that you get it, and a good-quality variable ND, and test. If IR contamination proves to be a problem, get an IR filter. If you do need one, do some research on which ones work with that sensor. IR filters are not at all the same; some work well on a particular camera, while others give very odd color rendering on that same camera.
Thanks all guys.
You're welcome!
-
I stand on my position.
I've been cutting during 3 years in MC and went quite far in the training and the tricks behind the tricks of its implementation. And no Dave. May it's robust, excellent media management etc...and would agree. But it's completly unintuitive (apart from basic editing).
...
In fact, what happens is that the "old folks" have lived with it and get used to each software generation so it seems "natural" for them.
And as you are old folk (do not mean old, grey hair and big belly ;D), well you are used to it for decades. For the new generation, it's another story.
Ouch! LOL!
So this is pretty much the response I expected. And it's not a discussion i care much about having, it's just something I'm curious about. Yes, it's true, I am an old guy. But I was not when I sat down at that Avid seat in 1993, and I had never sat at any non-linear editor before, so there must have been something "intuitive" about it. Of course, I came to it from, well, editing. Not from Microsoft Word. So there's that. But somehow I was able to cut a show for national air on a non-intuitive system without any training at all.
Truth be told, i don't think any editing software is intuitive. I don't think editing is intuitive. It's a very sophisticated and high-level language that requires thousands of hours to become good at. And that's completely regardless of which software you choose to do it with. I think the "intuitive" part of any of them is helpful for people who are not really editors, but who need to edit from time to time. People who spend their lives as editors get to know the software they choose so well that intuition doesn't really come into it any more.
That's why I have mostly stopped editing. I found I couldn't be as good as I wanted to be at everything, and I had a couple of very good editors working for me. So I stopped, and focussed on and directing and photography. I started working with Resolve because i wanted more control of my photography, and because I've always been something of a designer, I've kept doing some work in After Effects. But for editing, I'm still using with one of the editors who worked for me 20 years ago. He runs his own edit shop now, and I still think he does good work. And by not editing my own stuff, I find I have a more objective POV to critique it. So the work gets better.
So that's all waaay off-topic. (Sorry Adjork.)
Why so many people went FCP at the Golden age? up to 7th
Because it was more simple and offered the same (more or less).
Well, I'd say it was because it was cheaper. A lot cheaper. So people learned on it, and what you learn on always seems simpler. But that's just my opinion, of course. And I guess I really don't care. :-)
-
Dave, nice imputs as always.
I was of course teasing with the "old folk".
And you know me a bit. Writing in a foreign
Lenguage is quite difficult for me, and I often
Have to use shortcuts, without realizing if I
Reached the politicaly correct or not. But I'm
Direct in french also, lol !
Well, that's actually quite wrong. Sometimes I realise
perfectly I'm being provocative!
A tourist London tour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SkUPM_T7FE
and not the politicaly correct hypocrits blablas
I guess people who know me for long here forgive
my french way (you know those dirty people
who hardly wash themselves so they invented the bidet,
and this is really not a legend but a reflection as pure truth.
We hate water!!
Who would dare to say that the british cooking
-if there is one- tastes good?)
As a professional, I deeply respect you, learn a lot from
Your posts. You know much more than I do, and much
More than many many people I read also everywhere.
About Avid, and generaly NLEs, I agree totaly with your
Words.
It was purely semantic. True, the word intuitive
Means everything and nothing but just the meaning one
Associates to it. But when I saw your post I couldn't help
jumping on it to feed my provocative apetite and playing on words.
More seriously, I used it in the sense that there are
Tools that are so well designed that they can help the
Task they are made for, or not so well designed that
They can complicate it.
But of course, a talented editor would do wonders even
In a Windows Movie Maker. And to be good
Requires a lot of practise above natural gift.
As always, it's never the camera nor the software,
or the weather but talent and hard work.
In that sense, Avid, PP, FCPx...who cares?
Maybe we should only care in the sense that tool's design
and implementation affect the
practical experience although
not really the result. Cutting in Lightworks is a
completly different experience than cutting
in Avid, the mind behind being the same.
For me (and it's totaly personal), LW is more natural
in use.
IMO, a good tool has to be invisible, transparent. But that's not the talent.
In that sense and only in that sense I find LW "better" because of its
"transparency". Others will may think differently and everybody would be right.
Instead of intuitive should have I said practical? invisible? natural?
Ouch...it seems that my hair are turning grey like an "old fox" if I
Start philosophying.
Yeah, all that doesn't matter. We don't care.
Keep posting the good stuff as you do.
I like teasing.
What I find a bit of an hassle with m4/3 is to get wide lenses on the vintage market,
and I really don't like the touch and feeling of those current Pana or Oly lenses. I had some, they work fine
and maybe I'm posh and snob but I like metal construction and lots of blades as well as a bit of weight too.
With the blackmagic the access to vintage super16 (that would vignette on the GH4) gives more interesting
choices IMO, at least a wider range of possibilities in the vintage market.
But buying new without breaking the bank account, the Veydras are really good value for money in the m4/3.
Cine built quality, no breathing, same size between different focals, same filter threads, much longuer focusing ring from closer to infinity,
no fixed fstops etc etc... proper cine lens for 1000 bucks is quite amazing.
adrjork, About Lightning, listen to what D.Fuller said. In fact listen to all he said except for Avid. Lol!!
Here I join you some pics of a mouvement that operates here in Madrid and in the french city of Toulouse.
Those guys are against the cine industry, they reject the big médiums, the authoring and star system.
They are very much in the Jean Luc Godar "communist" cinema. I personaly do not share their views on
that but my point is that those guys are using the mínimum médiums posible. DSLRs, reduced crew to the max,
all amateur actors etc...And look, they lite! They actually
lite quite a lot. They make-up etc etc...
(http://static.wixstatic.com/media/75e5b9_762cf5d3bd3e429aaa42bbe27b7aeb97.jpg_srz_267_400_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz)
(http://static.wixstatic.com/media/75e5b9_96447b00a8f04ff5b935e843748e4d8f.jpg_srz_485_257_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz)
(https://masalladelaverdaddotnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/45075_429542020444663_1259086332_n.jpg)
-
Wow, I’m learning really much here, thx guys.
So, in order:
-Mr. D Fuller, you are right about the fact that up to now I think to shoot some images as row material for post work.
-About a wide lens: of course I’m going to buy a wide lens too. Simply I’ve thought to learn just one lens at a time.
-About artificial light: I fear of handling too many toys, so which could be the minimum kit? Could it be sufficient a little led light + a double-face reflector? Which is your minimal shopping list?
-About a protection filter over the lens: if IR is not advisable, which filter do you recommend to use as alway on invisible protection lens?
-I’m going to buy a 10bit monitor for my hackintosh workstation. As you know, OSX doesn’t handle 10bit natively via video card. I’ve noticed the DeckLink Mini Monitor (for HD) and the DeckLink Studio 4K (for 4K). Both declare 10bit, but I don’t understand if 10bit refers to SDI-only or also HDMI (it’s important for me because the monitor I’d buy is 10bit via HDMI only!)
Thx a lot as always.
-
-About artificial light: I fear of handling too many toys, so which could be the minimum kit? Could it be sufficient a little led light + a double-face reflector? Which is your minimal shopping list?
I think the most useful single light these days is a dimable bi-color LED panel. They are battery-powerable, reasonably soft, and can be used to add a bit of fill to a scene, or an edge, or in a smallish scene, they can be a key. There are even some very good flexible ones.
The second light I'd get for the way you describe shooting would be a small fresnel. This won't be battery powerable, but will be very cheap, tungsten-balanced, and very useful in the low-light, "available darkness" shooting you describe.
A double-faced reflector is a good idea, though I favor solid ones rather than floppy. Beadboard or white/black foamcore work well and are cheap. Negative fill is often useful (the black side of the foamcore). And get some diffusion. Opal or gridcloth. With small lights, nothing heavy, you can always double it if you need to. For less money, you can also use tracing paper. (But keep, t away from hot lights.)
-About a protection filter over the lens: if IR is not advisable, which filter do you recommend to use as alway on invisible protection lens?
UV or skylight. But don't just leave it there if you put other filters on. Swap them. More filters are not better unless they are all doing something you want.
-I’m going to buy a 10bit monitor for my hackintosh workstation. As you know, OSX doesn’t handle 10bit natively via video card. I’ve noticed the DeckLink Mini Monitor (for HD) and the DeckLink Studio 4K (for 4K). Both declare 10bit, but I don’t understand if 10bit refers to SDI-only or also HDMI (it’s important for me because the monitor I’d buy is 10bit via HDMI only!)
I'd be surprised if these were not 10-bit via HDMI, but the BMC web site should have detailed specs if you look around a bit.
-
I'd like, if you agree, to, from where we are in this thread at this point -lightning- go a Little further
in the sense that at best, we are talking about 1000 euros mínimum considering a fresnel+stand +batteries + bicolor led + stand + reflector.
1000 ish bucks in motion is just a joke. However,
for a lot of newcomers, if you sum camera+accessories+lenses+tripod+++ the bill may reach easily 3 or 4000 and a lot of dudes don't even have that to start.
So I'd like to ask a question to both James and Dave, if you see this. (or whoever of course wants to pop-up)
Put yourself in the skin of a complete broke beginner who is starting with an extremely reduced Budget.
Let's put the clock backwards to the Hippies. You just bought your WW orange van and the Who are playing on the radio, right?
You are Young, animated, passionate about motion.
You want to start to make your indy movies.
But you are broke. Your Budget is at max 300 euros for lightning because you just spent 2700 in camera and lenses and rig.
What would you choose?
What is interesting, is to have the view of long time pros, used to high budgets, so with their experience in mind, what would they do and what would they choose if they had to restart
from scratch with no money but with the equipment of nowdays.
ps: Or we can put in another way also: you are going to film an indy with 1 friend who is the actor in the jungle. You need max quality posible that fits in one bag, included the lightning, audio etc...
Everything has to be ultra small, but efficient enough. The other friend carries the bag with food and tent so there is just one bag for gear.
-
PS I shot this gig with a still camera and a Nikon d90 (or is that N90 I forget). Today it still gets us work.
http://www.russellrutherford.com/magic/
This video is great! I think I told you zillion times. It's one of my fav's coot.
Ps: don't know what the hell is happenin with QT on Windows but it freezes and takes ages to load. Saw that several times in other sites too that use QT. I had to save it in "original" in a hard drive to be able to watch it.
-
But you are broke. Your Budget is at max 300 euros for lightning because you just spent 2700 in camera and lenses and rig.
What would you choose?
What is interesting, is to have the view of long time pros, used to high budgets, so with their experience in mind, what would they do and what would they choose if they had to restart
from scratch with no money but with the equipment of nowdays.
At that point, I would have borrowed what I could and rented the rest of what I needed. That was true of cameras too. Nobody could afford to own a film camera, so there wasn't a choice. The first 16mm I owned was, like James, a Beaulieu (R16). Loved it. It's the only motion film camera I still own. But that was well after I started.
But I'll play along. I'd get this
Two sheets of White/black foamcore: $50
Two of these work lights (http://"http://www.homedepot.com/p/Workforce-Twin-Head-1-000-Watt-Halogen-Telescoping-Work-Light-637-449/202066789") (they break down to four units): $36 ea. $72 total
Two of these reflectors (http://"http://www.amazon.com/Bayco-SL-302B3-Brooder-Porcelain-Ceramic/dp/B0061MZ4Q6/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&qid=1442857384&sr=8-19&keywords=light+reflectors") with bulbs: about $50
Some diffusion material: Around $20.
A few sheets of CTB gel - full, 1/2, 1/4: about $50
Wood clothes pins: $5
Total: about $250
Another good option is to cruise eBay for used fresnels or Lowell tota-lights or the like.
ps: Or we can put in another way also: you are going to film an indy with 1 friend who is the actor in the jungle. You need max quality posible that fits in one bag, included the lightning, audio etc...
Everything has to be ultra small, but efficient enough. The other friend carries the bag with food and tent so there is just one bag for gear.
I'd take a Sony a7s and a few lenses: Mitakon Zhongyi 50mm f/0.95, Sony 90mm f/2.8 Macro, Sony FE PZ 28-135mm f/4 power zoom, Zeiss Batis 25mm f/2, maybe one longer lens, but that would depend on wht i knew about the jungle. Plus a light-weight Sachtler (or similar) tripod head on Gitzo carbon-fiber legs.
Low light capability will be important in the jungle; battery charging will be a problem. With no one but myself and the actor, the only thing I'd take for lighting would be a foldable reflector and an LED flashlight.
-
James and Dave, thanks a lot to have played the game. I'm sure many people have learned things here. I did.
-
About "talent" I agree with James.
This concept is used and abused and leads to confusion.
Natural habilities without hard works means nothing.
And hard work without talent can actually brings talent,
Just that it takes longuer than a dude with natural talent.
I've seen that over and over again in fine arts.
More than talent, the key word is purpose. Aim. The rest
Would follow.
There are a lot of romantism about "the artist" idea. Being broke
And alcoholic is one of them. Many well known painters
That people look as sort of homeless vagabunds were
From rich family with no concern on having to struggle,
That way one can "play the broken artist" and it looks so
Much more romantic, init?
But purpose can also be a trap. It's not about wanting to succeed,
Being famous, earn a lot of money and living the glamourous
hollywood life. Too many people are trapped in that too.
And life quality ain't either about not having a life. What does
Mean one million dollar if you don't have the time to enjoy it?
One can read Napoleon Hill to find the secret of Carnegie
(there is no secret by the way...) Or watch the motivators who are pushing
You to "you can do it" it's all about thoughts and all those
New-age blablas, but in fact it's all about release.
-
But you are broke. Your Budget is at max 300 euros for lightning because you just spent 2700 in camera and lenses and rig.
What would you choose?
I wouldn't spend so much of my budget on camera.
Lighting, gripping and lenses are all more important.
The first equipment I bought for myself was lighting.
If you are working by yourself then lighting is where you will make the biggest impact. In either controlling and subtracting available light or doing your own...
The first thing I bought was a Dedo four head 100w Master Kit with all the little accessories (suction cups and projection attachments). Shortly after I got a display Kino Diva for cheap as a larger Daylight source. I had the first dedo Octodome imported into Australia and I got a discounted Kino Diva. I bought some C stands and some 4x4 floppys for negative fill. It was all lighting for the first couple of years. (and it was a bloody expensive buy back then).
I also love inexpensive non film lights...xmas lights or paper lanterns...
The camera was always supplied or rented for my first few years. Even today, I still use those lights. I bought them because Dedo's are expensive and a lot of gaffers don't carry them, or in the way that I like to run them. I chopped the header cables and made it so I could easily run them off batteries or from sliding dimmers. I bought additional dimmers for 150w and chopped those cables too so I could also run the 150w globes...
I have done many jobs where it was just me and those lamps...They all work on any world voltage.
They are DC..I've never been brave enough to do it but you can put them underwater ! My favourite trick is to take the barn doors off and then grab a plastic water cup and turn it into a little diffuser. They slot right into the barn door holders !
Eventually I have managed to shame some gaffers into getting them for me after pulling "my lights" out on a job they are doing....They are very versatile.
The second thing I bought was a geared head. It's very hard to learn how to operate wheels without practicing and none of the jobs I was doing would pay for a geared head in the rental package.
So I bought one so that I could use it and learn how to operate using wheels. Many remote heads on cranes use wheels, and they offer a very different feel to a stick head in regular drama.
Notice these purchases are also camera agnostic. They don't go out of date and I still use them today....OK the head I inflict on my assistants to get THEM to learn how to operate wheels...
The dedo's are 20 years old now and have paid for themselves many times over and more importantly, gave me a way of lighting when I had nothing and was by myself. That's their true value. They made my work better.
I'm not saying YOU should get dedos, but you should consider your own visual approach and lighting should be the very first thing you work to hone and understand. The camera just captures what you do with light.....
Think about a lighting package that gives you the most flexibility, that you can easily manage by yourself and will make your work better...
Honestly it will be the single thing that makes the biggest difference to your work. Not the camera you use to capture it...
I actively avoided buying a camera as long as I can. Even today, I've not really bought cameras. I have inherited some from Blackmagic, only because it's a kind of payment-in-kind for testing for them...
I'd rather rent the best camera for the job. I know that not everyone can do that and it depends on the work, but even on the lowest budget stuff I was doing I always rented the camera. I could often negotiate a really good deal with the camera rental company. And thats something to do...try to foster a relationship with a good equipment supplier...
JB
My geared head on one of the first jobs I had it on...extra points if you can name the camera and lens...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/2315390671/in/album-72157626229445665/
Here's a short film from years ago where it was a very small crew. I lit a bath scene using some xmas lights stuck to foam.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/379214503/in/album-72157594516953312/
And even a car interior with rope lights...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/johnbrawley/15729533605/in/album-72157594566402764/
-
3 experienced pros, all pointing the very first
Importance of lightning.
I think it's quite clear.
I also have the feeling that audio is dead key too.
Almost nobody focuss on audio. However the audience
Is very forgiving in terms of image quality.
No one goes to the cine to be delighted by how great
The zillion Ks sensor of the X camera displays.
The only ones who are concerned with this are us.
But audience will not forgive a crap audio.
In Spain, the level of doublage actors is very high and known
WW for that. (as medecine by the way). To the point that
I prefer to watch a french movie dobled in spanish than the
Original in my own lenguage. Big difference!
-
3 experienced pros, all pointing the very first
Importance of lightning.
I think it's quite clear.
I also have the feeling that audio is dead key too.
Almost nobody focuss on audio. However the audience
Is very forgiving in terms of image quality.
No one goes to the cine to be delighted by how great
The zillion Ks sensor of the X camera displays.
The only ones who are concerned with this are us.
But audience will not forgive a crap audio.
In Spain, the level of doublage actors is very high and known
WW for that. (as medecine by the way). To the point that
I prefer to watch a french movie dobled in spanish than the
Original in my own lenguage. Big difference!
As this is a camera forum, audio doesn't get much attention. But my preference there is always to hire a good recordist with his gear.
-
As this is a camera forum, audio doesn't get much attention. But my preference there is always to hire a good recordist with his gear.
Sound is something you just can't mess with. I agree with Fred because you can get by with some weak imagery, but bad sound is just awful.
We own a bunch of radio lavs and honestly ONLY use them for a few quick insets or personal work. Never on a production (well we did in Moscow, but that's a way too long story).
We have a great soundman in LA ok sound guys in other places and even our very good one complains that I want his mix saved by him and into each camera.
I hate running a scratch mike, but I've found his mix into the R1s sounds identical to his wav files he hands over.
Ive compared them two dozen times and can't find any difference, though he is good.
Once the edit is completed I have a sound tech that finishes the mix and the difference to what we can do ourself is a billion percent better when he does it.
Even a good on set sound guy can mess up. I keep a set of old cheap Panasonic headphones I love, because they have no sound suppression and hear everything, good and bad.
We were on Location and I heard a hum. I kept telling the sound guy I hear a hum and he kept saying it's all clean.
Then half way into the day he hears it. Turns out an HMI ballast was packing up and since we were all on mains it was producing feedback.
At that point we had to live with it and luckily when we went to sound sweetening the hum was above the dialog so we got lucky.
But sound, yea it's not a diy job.
IMO
BC
P.S. On broadcast I now hear a lot of bad sound. Even on budgeted shows, which kind of amazes me that they squeeze the budgets that tight.
-
Sound is something you just can't mess with. I agree with Fred because you can get by with some weak imagery, but bad sound is just awful.
We own a bunch of radio lavs and honestly ONLY use them for a few quick insets or personal work. Never on a production (well we did in Moscow, but that's a way too long story).
We have a great soundman in LA ok sound guys in other places and even our very good one complains that I want his mix saved by him and into each camera.
I hate running a scratch mike, but I've found his mix into the R1s sounds identical to his wav files he hands over.
Ive compared them two dozen times and can't find any difference, though he is good.
Once the edit is completed I have a sound tech that finishes the mix and the difference to what we can do ourself is a billion percent better when he does it.
Even a good on set sound guy can mess up. I keep a set of old cheap Panasonic headphones I love, because they have no sound suppression and hear everything, good and bad.
We were on Location and I heard a hum. I kept telling the sound guy I hear a hum and he kept saying it's all clean.
Then half way into the day he hears it. Turns out an HMI ballast was packing up and since we were all on mains it was producing feedback.
At that point we had to live with it and luckily when we went to sound sweetening the hum was above the dialog so we got lucky.
But sound, yea it's not a diy job.
IMO
BC
P.S. On broadcast I now hear a lot of bad sound. Even on budgeted shows, which kind of amazes me that they squeeze the budgets that tight.
Amen to every word of this.
As it is true with photography that light is far more important than what camera you shoot on, it is true that the most important thing for good sound is mic placement. Somebody has to pay attention to that (as well as the other technical aspects of sound). If the photographer does that it is always an afterthought.
-
A question on grading, specially with LUTs.
I have the sensation, the more I grade, that the very key factor that comes first, and very specially with LUTs is before any intervention, to nail color temp. Would you confirm that?
But does that means that in the case of a RLF or an ARRI log, or a BM flat, I obligatory have to first apply a Rec709 lut (not talking about display color management) first (if my output is Rec709) before any color balance?
Or... color balance node is placed first before the delog node? (that's what I do)
I got the sensation that the trick resides in the order but still a bit uncertain. What comes first or should comes first with log material?
The scenario being this one: I got a Prores file in log. Let's forget about raw. Would you follow a divine order? (like: first a log-to-rec709 node, then a color temp adjust, etc...)
Because I don't see how can I adjust my color temp in post if what I see is a washed file. So I have to delog it first but in fact I would put myself the color temp node before the delog one. (or if it's raw just affect the metadatas)
That part is still a bit vague to me. I need more flying hours.
the order I would work is this:
A) display color management set to rec709
A1) color temp adjustment node or metadatas adjust if raw to get the more neutral posible colors
+ A2) look LUT plus grading nodes to refine
then
B) display color management disabled
B3) delog node like logC to rec709 (according to the camera)
the delog node would be the very last one in the chain.
B4) conform
Is that correct for you?
outchhhh...completly out of topic! (as always we end like this...lol)
-
A question on grading, specially with LUTs.
I have the sensation, the more I grade, that the very key factor that comes first, and very specially with LUTs is before any intervention, to nail color temp. Would you confirm that?
Yes. Absolutely. The reason is that there are transforms of the color relationships that are part of the color science for the Raw-to-RGB transform that are affected by white balance in ways that are very hard to reproduce in RGB space.
But does that means that in the case of a RLF or an ARRI log, or a BM flat, I obligatory have to first apply a Rec709 lut (not talking about display color management) first (if my output is Rec709) before any color balance?
Or... color balance node is placed first before the delog node? (that's what I do)
No. Or, actually, it doesn't matter. Because the white balance happens as part of debayer, before any of the RGB processes. It precedes any LUT and any grading.
I got the sensation that the trick resides in the order but still a bit uncertain. What comes first or should comes first with log material?
The scenario being this one: I got a Prores file in log. Let's forget about raw. Would you follow a divine order? (like: first a log-to-rec709 node, then a color temp adjust, etc...)
Because I don't see how can I adjust my color temp in post if what I see is a washed file. So I have to delog it first but in fact I would put myself the color temp node before the delog one. (or if it's raw just affect the metadatas)
That part is still a bit vague to me. I need more flying hours.
This is different. It's not "white balance" in the sense we use it in photography, it's "setting white and black points" in a color-grading sense, which is different. Fundamentally, it's different because you are not adjusting the way the camera sees color, you are just adjusting color. So it has no relationship to the camera's color science any more.
In this case, you really need to use the LUT, because, as you say, it is very hard to judge the white and black points on a LOG image.
BUT.
I don't rely on my monitor very much when I set a white point. I look at the scopes. I only really rely on the picture monitor for that if I want the whites to be, well, NOT white. :) Like very warm or cool or something. Otherwise, I find a clear white part of the image and line up the RG&B on the scopes, then do the same with black and back and forth until I'm happy with it on the picture monitor.
the order I would work is this:
A) display color management set to rec709
A1) color temp adjustment node or metadatas adjust if raw to get the more neutral posible colors
+ A2) look LUT plus grading nodes to refine
then
B) display color management disabled
B3) delog node like logC to rec709 (according to the camera)
the delog node would be the very last one in the chain.
B4) conform
Is that correct for you?
outchhhh...completly out of topic! (as always we end like this...lol)
I don't understand why you're changing the display color management. This is not really my area of expertise, but in my view, the calibrated monitor should hold be set to the target calibration and left there, otherwise madness ensues, and you can never be sure of any reality. (or color.)
So if you're grading to a REC709 target, the monitor stays calibrated to that, and the LOG-to-709 LUT transforms the picture so that it is accurately represented on a REC 709 monitor. It is wise to put the LOG-to-709 LUT in the last node, or even as an output LUT because it can hard clip stuff, and if it's earlier in the tree, you can't get that stuff back. (Presumably if it's at the end, you don't care about getting it back.) I know some people who like to put it in the middle so they can grade the log material before it and the 709 material after it, but I just find that confusing and very hard to keep consistent.
Any of this help?
-
Very much!! Many thanks Dave.
The part you explained on "....So it has no relationship to the camera's color science any more". is something I sort of caught by myself but was
still vaguish. Now I got that part ultra clear. Thanks to you. This is an important part to understand.
The scopes are important too. Yes!
On the changing color management display at the end, previous to apply the rec709 LUT was indeed confusing. But that's my fault because I expressed myself badly.
I had in mind the viewing Luts and not the color management display as in Scratch or Resolve that is happening in-board if I might say. In the case of a viewing Lut, not disabling it will result in doubling the effect of the rec709 node in the end. That won't affect the conform itself because it's just a lut for viewing but it's never nice to see suddenly a super crushed rec709. Sorry for the confusion.
-
Because the white balance happens as part of debayer, before any of the RGB processes.
at least in raw converters WB happens either before (for example RPP) or after (for example ACR/LR) demosaicking... not as a part of demosaicking.
-
at least in raw converters WB happens either before (for example RPP) or after (for example ACR/LR) demosaicking... not as a part of demosaicking.
That is, perhaps, correct. If you know something about that, it's a discussion I'd love to delve a little more deeply into.
In this case, knowing a little bit about Fred's workflow, I was distinguishing between the raw conversion and grading environments in Resolve.
It's not as clear to me how raw conversion works in ACR (specifically, what affects demosaicing and what is simply RGB transforms) but in Resolve, with Red Raw footage, for example, white balance in the Raw settings does something more than just setting a white point. It is part of the Red SDK, and is, as I understand it, part of the camera's color science. If WB is right for the raw conversion stage, the RGB image that gets produced out is much easier to grade with Resolve's RGB tools.
-
It's not as clear to me how raw conversion works in ACR
in Adobe workflow demosaicking happens before WB (linear DNG are demosaicked and still in camera's "color space" - there is no difference in ACR/LR output from a native raw vs from a linear DNG produced by the same version of ACR/LR) and WB is actually a somewhat part of a color transform (the matrix part of it)... in RPP a simple per channel multiplication happens before demosaicking, but also exposure correction & curves (gamma, L*, "film", whatever) are applied before demosaicking as well... = quite different approach.
-
...but in Resolve, with Red Raw footage, for example, white balance in the Raw settings does something more than just setting a white point. It is part of the Red SDK, and is, as I understand it, part of the camera's color science. If WB is right for the raw conversion stage, the RGB image that gets produced out is much easier to grade with Resolve's RGB tools.
Indeed. In scratch too, in Fusion also and for some imputs I read in Red forum from the colorists gurus,
In Baselight too.
Red is "post-prod" friendly. The difficulty comes more IMO with
prores logC.
-
Indeed. In scratch too, in Fusion also and for some imputs I read in Red forum from the colorists gurus,
In Baselight too.
Red is "post-prod" friendly. The difficulty comes more IMO with
prores logC.
For prores log files, it is really the cinematographer's responsibility the get white balance right. The camera is doing the demosaic, so you don't get to have a say in it.
In that case (which happens very seldom for me, because I mostly grade only my own stuff) if the WB needs tweaking, I'll usually start the node tree with a node that I use to set the white point, the black point and a usually gray point. I then copy that node to all of the shots from that scene, so it becomes a standard starting point--sort of like a white balance.
-
in Adobe workflow demosaicking happens before WB (linear DNG are demosaicked and still in camera's "color space" - there is no difference in ACR/LR output from a native raw vs from a linear DNG produced by the same version of ACR/LR) and WB is actually a somewhat part of a color transform (the matrix part of it)... in RPP a simple per channel multiplication happens before demosaicking, but also exposure correction & curves (gamma, L*, "film", whatever) are applied before demosaicking as well... = quite different approach.
I have some questions I've wanted to ask about the nature of raw files from still cameras that I suspect you might be able to answer. I'm too tired now, but I'll come back to you on that tomorrow.
BTW... Are you the author of RPP?
DAF
-
So this is the first to put, and then all the others would come before it, so it becomes the last node just before conform. That's correct?
LUTs are destructive and clip therefore need to be the last node.
My nodes in resolve go like this..
Basic Correction. (yes colour balance here)
Secondaries - select the sky and make it darker
Artistic Look (desat, make everything rust colour!)
LUT
Here if you take time to understand and ignore that im working from raw (it is the same with any codec in) you will see
https://vimeo.com/73033931
-
Yes, I saw your video. But it seems that everything is destructive apart from metadatas.
Maybe too much mystic on raw
Here I join an image I just created to resume. Is that correct?
-
Sure - but Im not building cameras.. just using what I have.
Clearly raw is IMO superior and the WB doesnt matter.
(actually in raw the wb can matter of the scene.. eg shooting under tungsten can lead to noise in blue as that channel needs to be amplified in post!)
in the real world a 444 codec (I tested SR on the F5) is strong enough for you to shoot under tungsten with the camera set a t 5500 and correct well.
A log 10bit camera like the FS7 has three settings 3200, 4500 and 5500, if you get the right one you are golden.
A DSLR 4-2-0 needs near perfect in camera shooting.
So you take your choice..
2TB per hour* and $50g camera - no WB correction needed
.3 TB per hour and $10g camera - choose one of three levels
.05 tb per hour and $1g camera - get it nailed or die.
IMO the mid point is the winner!
*all these figures are a guess - but in the right park?
S
-
2TB per hour* and $50g camera - no WB correction needed
.3 TB per hour and $10g camera - choose one of three levels
.05 tb per hour and $1g camera - get it nailed or die.
I agree with morgan on most of what he says, though not his price numbers.
If you ask 10 people their workflow you'll get 10 answers. (regardless of medium or genre)
So much depends on how you work, light and the subject as there is no one answer.
A very good field monitor will tell you as much as scopes, balancing using lighting, will obviously give me a more workable file.
Due to time and budget I'm not surprised that so many times people get caught out on exposure, but I am amazed that people think raw or a flat log will fix anything.
As Morgan says, working tungsten and trying to get to a cool look will make the blue channel go nuts on most cameras.
I know my Reds wouldn't do blue at 1200 ASA when I started with them, though Cinex has improved and now I can get there without too much noticeable noise, or smoothing.
I do know the REDs like warm more than cool, if pushed into low light scenes.
If I see a trailer like the Martian that is very, very warm I know it's probably shot on a RED (though I think the decision of this movie was 3d), though an expert color team can do about anything if it's shot within range.
Prior to the recession I had a amazing color team in Dallas that was in a large 4 story building. Today . . . they're housed in a 6 room office suite, so the diy system of coloring has taken over, though I doubt seriously if the thousands of people running free resolve own a calibrated broadcast monitor.
I know of one young production company that thinks the c-log, or the technicolor log for Canons is actually film color and once they apply it to their camera, they're done.
Seriously. Then I had a client say man that's a cool look so real and desaturated. (shoot me please).
Personally I loathe flat logs in these little 8 bit cameras. It all looks washed out, hell to focus, can't see the highlights properly and are a recipe for failure.
In regards to asa, all I can say is test. I keep my REDs at 800 sometimes go to 1000 or 1200 in a pinch.
I never go to 400 absolutely never, ever, ever go to 200.
If working fast, (without time to check the dit station) I try to have a field monitor and first make it match my evf, then just bump the contrast on the field monitor because if I can keep it in that range I'm safe.
If working ultra fast, I just try to be safe and that's why I like to start with a evf rather than a screen that changes from the angle you view at.
IMO
BC
P.S. But when you think about it few still photographers run broadcast quality, high gamut calibrated monitors. They set down at their Imac and start working a still out of lightroom or ACR.
If they do it well, they learn two things. 1. NO two screens ever match, so obviously when you ship NO 1000 screens are going to get close. 2. Do what works for you and your client and don't worry about it unless you're shooting for the theatre then that's a whole different animal.
-
I never go to 400 absolutely never, ever, ever go to 200.
But why? That's what is confusing to me.
If you shoot 200 and then in Cinex changed the metas to 800, isn't that the same as if you shooted 800 from capture?
This is precisely the point I don't get clear.
-
But why? That's what is confusing to me.
If you shoot 200 and then in Cinex changed the metas to 800, isn't that the same as if you shooted 800 from capture?
This is precisely the point I don't get clear.
I don't either, but unlike you Fred (and I mean this in a nice way) I don't care.
Roger Deakins works at 800 on the Arri sometimes at 1200 in a pinch so if it works for him, it will work for me.
I believe in the theory of the uncluttered mind.
Right now I have a client that wants an edit repurposed into two very unique sizes, 3 to 1 and 3 to 3.3.
It's for huge displays around uhd and of course everything will have to be moved around to fit these dimensions, but the specs of the display requirements are equally important.
Trying talking Codecs, bitrates, gamma, Khz, to someone who is just passing along information.
IMO
BC
-
BTW... Are you the author of RPP?
I am not - I just follow the http://raw-rpp.livejournal.com
but Iliah Borg who participates in RPP project along it its original creator, A. Tverdokhleb, is actually a member here.
-
... but unlike you Fred (and I mean this in a nice way) I don't care.
Lol!
More of my graphics. 8)
-
Lol!
More of my graphics. 8)
Fred,
Your brain is going to explode.
IMO
BC
-
re: grading with Log - REC709 LUT
I have found it best to put the LUT in the middle of the grading stack of instructions.
Below the LUT, you are working in LOG space, on the LOG curve itself. Above the LUT, you are working with REC709 footage, in the usual "video" techniques. All data below the LUT is recoverable by lowering/raising the gain/black level below the LUT. If you're working with ARRI LogC, and using an ARRI LUT, there are color matrix conversions in the LUT that are very difficult to duplicate using the usual Lift, gamma, gain controls. If you want the "Alexa" look, use the LUT. But not at the end, in the middle of the grade.
If you are grading on a REC709 calibrated display, there will be no need for a display LUT at the end of the chain.
-
re: grading with Log - REC709 LUT
I have found it best to put the LUT in the middle of the grading stack of instructions.
Below the LUT, you are working in LOG space, on the LOG curve itself. Above the LUT, you are working with REC709 footage, in the usual "video" techniques. All data below the LUT is recoverable by lowering/raising the gain/black level below the LUT. If you're working with ARRI LogC, and using an ARRI LUT, there are color matrix conversions in the LUT that are very difficult to duplicate using the usual Lift, gamma, gain controls. If you want the "Alexa" look, use the LUT. But not at the end, in the middle of the grade.
If you are grading on a REC709 calibrated display, there will be no need for a display LUT at the end of the chain.
Nice to read you Bruce.
You mean this 16bit LUT for ex: AlexaV3_K1S1_LogC2Video_rec709 ?
I understand why you say it
But when you say in the middle, it is very vague...what should then come first and after? The middle is a bit everything and nothing.
-
Nice to read you Bruce.
You mean this 16bit LUT for ex: AlexaV3_K1S1_LogC2Video_rec709 ?
I understand why you say it
But when you say in the middle, it is very vague...what should then come first and after? The middle is a bit everything and nothing.
Yes like that LUT. K1S1 has a strong toe and shoulder curve. K2S2 has a gentler curve and less contrast etc.
The grading instructions before or under the LUT work directly on the image in log space, as if it was a film negative inverted. When you apply an offset command (moving the entire image the same amount) it's like changing the exposure when printing a film negative to paper. It very much mimics changing the iris on the camera while viewing through through a REC709 LUT to a monitor.
Above or after the LUT it's like working on normal video grading. All controls work as expected.
To understand what's going on try turning the LUT on and off and watching the scopes as you play with the controls. Hope this is clear and helpful!
-
Hope this is clear and helpful!
Totaly helpful ! Thanks Bruce.
-
Totaly helpful ! Thanks Bruce.
I should also add that there is a color matrix conversion in the Arri LUT also (though you can create one in the Arri LUT creator webpage without it). Compare the image that you get using the Arri LUT with one you de-log using a luminance curve. You can match the contrast, but I doubt you'll be able to match the color.
And, lastly, the K2S2-REC709 LUT is the same as the REC709 monitor output on the Alexa cameras that you would see in the field. So, if you want to start with what your camera looked like on set, use the K2S2 LUT (assuming you didn't have a LUT box and custom LUT for your display in the field)
-
I prefer the K2S than the 1, at least more easy for me.
After your post, I started to read on placing the Lut node not
In the end but in the middle.
Quite interesting readings I must say.
Although everyone has its own workflow, I sort of made a %,
And among experienced colorists, when it comes to log material
I would say that a big 80% do what you suggested.
For some reasons.
It's too early for me to picture at that stage all the benefits
Of such approach (apart the fact that what's below is recoverable)
because I still lack experience on these
Techniques but I will follow the advice.
Now regarding Arriraw (and that could be a question for Red also)
I would use the converter to nail WB and exposure and very fast
Do a convertion because the raw workflow is very heavy.
Even with my BM camera. And to be really honest, I don't shoot
Raw anymore but just prores HQ.
Curiously, Scratch does not slowdown my workflow while
The ARC is a mess (and I checked the cpu option). Weired.
-
Back to the OP's question on equipment.
Today, used 2010 12 core silver macpros and selling for more than new mid level mac pros.
I think we all know why.
IMO
BC