|
Tiresias posted:Why does everyone want to own a camera? Is it a business decision, or a tool you want in your palette? I buy cameras but just the ones that do what I want because I do so much of my own stuff so there's no point in renting for that. If I can use my own gear for a shoot and make a little extra cash, then I'll go that route as well. But no, I wouldn't buy a RED or something just so I'd have it around. Anything outside of "hobbyist" price range I rent when I need. I did buy my HVX-200 when I first got out of film school, but that was because I had no experience whatsoever and it was a really quick way to build up a lot of experience really quickly (plus I graduated the same month the HVX-200 came out so it was still new to the scene). If someone wants to be an editor or something, I wouldn't recommend it, but if you're freelancing and trying to soak up gigs, it definitely doesn't hurt to have a camera you can job with at the last moment. bassguitarhero fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Apr 11, 2012 |
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
Tiresias posted:Why does everyone want to own a camera? Is it a business decision, or a tool you want in your palette? For me it's both. I do a lot of low-budget freelance-stuff on my own, which means I can keep the camera-rental-money for my self, and the customers will get really good images for the same price, but I also work in a small production company that does a lot of bigger stuff, which would also be able to rent from me at a really good price. I should be able to earn back the investment pretty quick, which makes it a very simple choice! But despite writeoffs and investments and all that, the REAL reason is that I want a really good setup so I can shoot awesome looking shorts every other day 
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 01:48
|
|
|
That's refreshing to read, thank you guys. I just come into contact with a lot of people who buy expensive gear, thinking it'll get them high paying gigs... when the timeframe for paying off a big item is pretty long and challenging to do unless you have the work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
I wouldn't buy something like an Epic unless I had cash in hand for a project that would pay for it. But we live in a world where you can get a DSLR for $2k - even with lenses and support, you're not spending a ton of money and the IQ relative to how much you spent on your system is pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
There's a lot to be said for the "fart around" factor - even the majority of people buy cameras when they should be renting lights instead have the idea that if they had a camera on hand could spring immediately into creative action whenever the idea takes them. Which is or isn't true depending on who you are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 04:23
|
|
|
Greenplastic posted:I thought I could afford a Red Scarlet, but even after getting the base packs you need so much loving extra equipment to make it at all practical, and some of that poo poo is expensive! 10 000 USD for four SSD-cards! As someone said a few posts later, the newly announced Sony camera would be a good under 20k total package that could be very nice, but since I haven't gotten to play with one yet, I can't say for sure. However, in actually BUYING a camera you are in most cases restricting yourself to a ceiling of that price range in terms of jobs, not to mention a short relevance window. A "real" DP only owns a light meter and some gaffer's glass. Although that hasn't stopped the success of many people across town, but I feel like it's a dead end endeavor in the long run. BeavisNuke posted:The new Canon C300 has been my dream camera since it was announced. Check out this comparison to the Arri Alexa: I've played with the C300 and I am thoroughly unimpressed. That clip even shows some of its weaknesses if you know where to look. The image, despite it's supposed tech, looks not as good as its DSLR brethren, and that's inexcusable. For 15 grand you are MUCH better off with an F3 (currently). It's my responsibly in my job to keep abreast on the latest tech. That said, we didn't even bother buying a single C300, not even just one to "see how it goes". The biggest reason being that from the day one of the announcement of the c300 they also announced that they would come out with a better and cheaper camera during 2012. Why bother? (and from what I've heard their next camera isn't actually that great either, based on the specs) Personally I only own a cheap-as-hell Canon T2i and it's worked well enough for me. I never rent it out these days but it enables me to do that spur of the moment creative-whatever when I feel like it. However in my case when I'm not working in the shop I'm directing, not Dp'ing. (from this point on when I say "you" I only mean "you" in the vague, non-specific sense) If you want to Dp then be worth renting a camera for. If you're not good enough, AC until you are, but don't shoot yourself in the leg by only getting a project because you're the lowest bidder owner/operator. It screws you and everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:A "real" DP only owns a light meter and some gaffer's glass. Although that hasn't stopped the success of many people across town, but I feel like it's a dead end endeavor in the long run. You're right! I'm actually not an aspiring photographer, but an aspiring director, and the only reason I'm even considering this is that I just inherited a bunch of money and decided that if other people can waste their money on cars and stuff, I can waste 1/5 of my cash on a camera I might even earn back I'm also planning on getting a simple lighting package, but I also have access to a bunch of lights and equipment from people I know in the business. I guess calling it an investment is wrong, because it's not about that, it's more about shooting stuff being the most awesome loving thing in the world. Basically, I would rather put money in a camera than in a car, an apartment, a boat, or anything else, and I'm sick and tired of having to borrow lovely cameras or 5Ds whenever I get an awesome impulse!
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 09:36
|
|
|
Greenplastic posted:You're right! I'm actually not an aspiring photographer, but an aspiring director, and the only reason I'm even considering this is that I just inherited a bunch of money and decided that if other people can waste their money on cars and stuff, I can waste 1/5 of my cash on a camera I might even earn back I really believe the future of filmmaking is trending towards indie-style, small groups of folks who can turn around films that look as good as what comes out of Hollywood (to the general public, of course). With film on its way out, everything going digital, soon the indie groups and the Hollywood groups will be shooting on drat-near the same equipment. In that case, renting better equipment when you have a gig that will do it is still a useful tool (and good business sense as well), but it's REALLY helpful to have your own equipment so you can get out and start shooting as soon as the bug itches. Getting a crew together is hard enough as it is when you're doing it as a hobby, trying to book equipment around that kind of a schedule is just even more frustrating. Having a camera, a simple light kit, and enough audio equipment to shoot a short means that the only thing really holding you back at any moment is a good idea and the willpower to execute it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:Why does everyone want to own a camera? Is it a business decision, or a tool you want in your palette? In my case it's a combination of being 300 miles from the nearest rental house, "client wants 4k", tax writeoff and wanting to have a marketable camera package/reel when I may end up having to uproot and move to a new area in a year or so. Being an indie superstar would be great, but that's not really something I can shoot for while I'm the sole breadwinner in the household.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
So Canon announced two new cameras today and with it, continuing the trend of pissing their success away by releasing inferior equipment for a premium price. First up is the C500, the successor to the C300. I had hoped that they would fix some things, like.... replacing the awful sensor or charging a reasonable price, perhaps? Instead what we got is a camera that is almost exactly like the C300 except now it has a second HD-SDI output and with it, a host of 4K 4:4:4 and Raw options. Which is all well and good but you can only take advantage of it through an external recorder. The CF cards it carries still only record 50MBps HD video. And they even kept the same crappy sensor from the C300. They wouldn't list the price but I have little doubt that it will far more than it's worth, like its C300 forefather. The next winner on our list is the 1D-C DSLR. It does 4K video! Oh, what's that? It only records 8-bit 4:2:2 Motion-loving-JPEG? Even if you use an external recorder via the HDMI it's still only 8-bit 4:2:2. So all you're getting for upgrading your 5D is an extra 2K of resolution for the modest price of $15,000! Kill yourself. Canon had a huge corner of the market and several years to develop cameras that would solve their DSLR-inherent shortcomings and THIS is the best they can do? What an unfortunate waste.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
I don't think that the C300 sensor is bad at all? The camera itself seems a bit overpriced, but the images look lovely to me. Sharp imagery and gobs of dynamic range, minimal rolling shutter. And the C500 (and any of these C-cams for that matter) aren't really targeting DSLR shooters - this seems like a direct competitor to the Epic. Don't know what they were thinking with the 1D-C though. It seems like it would cut into C300 sales, since the C300 is locked into 8-bit 1080p and you could at least get nice downsampled 4k images from the 1D-C.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
I'm not a fan of Red, I don't personally care for their camera design (although I've used them and they make great images.) but the C300 isn't even in the same league as the Scarlet or Epic. It's more like a poor man's F-3, which is ironic since it costs more than an F3. On paper it looks okay, even better than the F-3 I mentioned but light those two cameras up side by side and you can tell the difference even without the help of a waveform. Look at it in context with the all of the cameras out there it looks bad. Even the 7D or 5D makes better looking images. It doesn't handle highlights well and it just looks very "video". It doesn't have a dynamic range worth writing home about, Log-C helps but even that doesn't make it worth the money. Don't get me wrong, it's not an awful image, like, AF-100 bad. But for the price it's not nearly good enough. Maybe if it was $8,000 it would be worth it, and that's generous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 01:41
|
|
|
I agree that the F3 produces a better image than the C300, but I don't think the 5D is even in the same league as the C300 - I don't actually like the way highlights are handled on the 5D. Sure they don't shift yellow like a lot of video cameras, but I feel like they clip way too early and there aren't a lot of ways to manage your gamma curves and even the AF100 gives you options there. Also, I was talking about the C500 as an Epic competitor based on sensor size and resolution, I don't think the C300 is in the same ballpark at all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 02:01
|
|
|
Right but the Scarlet is basically the same as an Epic that maxes out resolution at 4K and can't do overcrank or HDRx at anything higher than 2K. So I still wouldn't put the Scarlet and the C300 on the same table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
I just saw this video released by the Canadian Mint regarding Canada's new digital currency. What software do you guys figure they used to make the video? Is this something that you'd put together using After Effects?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
And 6 months from now, it'll be some other cobbled together, 60% = good enough moderately expensive magnesium alloy housed POS everyone will wet their pants to spend 5 figures on and ride for 6 months until the next cobbled together, 62% = good enough blah blah blah... I can't keep up. I like my Steadicam... a model designed almost a decade ago, based on technology and innovations dating back to the 1970's, and it works with everything out there. This race just seems like fetishism.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I just saw this video released by the Canadian Mint regarding Canada's new digital currency. What software do you guys figure they used to make the video? Is this something that you'd put together using After Effects?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:And 6 months from now, it'll be some other cobbled together, 60% = good enough moderately expensive magnesium alloy housed POS everyone will wet their pants to spend 5 figures on and ride for 6 months until the next cobbled together, 62% = good enough blah blah blah... Lately I've been wishing there was "like" button on individual posts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 04:56
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I just saw this video released by the Canadian Mint regarding Canada's new digital currency. What software do you guys figure they used to make the video? Is this something that you'd put together using After Effects? Looks like they used a 3D program for things here and there(the globe, closeup of the computer), but most of that could be handled in After Effects I think.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
After effects can do limited 3D, I think the 3D in this piece could have been done entirely in AF. Just saying it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 07:48
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:After effects can do limited 3D, I think the 3D in this piece could have been done entirely in AF. Just saying it's possible. I'm watching this and not seeing anything that couldn't be done natively in AE - no plugins required.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:And 6 months from now, it'll be some other cobbled together, 60% = good enough moderately expensive magnesium alloy housed POS everyone will wet their pants to spend 5 figures on and ride for 6 months until the next cobbled together, 62% = good enough blah blah blah... For me it's about getting the most out of my money when I spend them, but as soon as I got my camera, I'll probably keep using it for years and years, because it's what I got and I don't really care if I could've gotten half a stop more latitude by waiting three more years to buy - what matters if what you point the camera at, after all.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
Let's not forget it's also still way more about what you do with the camera and the lights than what camera it is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
BeavisNuke posted:Let's not forget it's also still way more about what you do with the camera and the lights than what camera it is. Can someone explain this to the potential client I've been talking to? I will use a camera. I will make it look good. You have seen other things that I have done. It will look like that, only it will be your thing. Please stop asking me about my specific equipment and/or editing software.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2012 23:22
|
|
|
A camera is just a fancy box that captures light. It's the light it captures that make the image, the box itself is useless for anything except being a carrier of media. While some cameras have more buttons than others, they are all still just boxes that capture light in some way. People worry way too much about the box and way too little about the light that hits it and that worries me. Available light sucks when you know how pretty it can be once you augment it with some gorgeous lamps. I'll take a light/lens fetishist over a camera fetishist any day of the week. Atleast I won't have pointless discussions with them that don't lead to anything about a subject that doesn't really interest me. Don't know why I keep getting pulled into camera discussions, I never had this many pointless camera discussions when digital wasn't around. I miss those days already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 06:47
|
|
|
Oh god I love lenses  Our normal kit is the Arri super speeds (18, 25, 35, 50, 85, 135), but I rented a 14mm Ultra Prime for the show I'm shooting this week and holy Jesus do I love that series of lenses. I had a 40mm Ultra Prime on the show I shot last month and it was my go to lens for the entire week. It really makes me want to get my hands on the Arri master primes and Cooke S/4 and S/5 series.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2012 10:31
|
|
|
Gaffers who can communicate with DP's in footcandles, I will refer for work until the day I die.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
Are those like flashlights that go on your feet or wut
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 07:41
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Are those like flashlights that go on your feet or wut  Also, image searching "candle foot fetish" was kind of weird. EnsGDT fucked around with this message at 11:51 on Apr 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 11:45
|
|
|
Chitin posted:I'm watching this and not seeing anything that couldn't be done natively in AE - no plugins required. Yea, there's nothing in that video that AE couldn't do. Even the globe would be relatively simple. Steadiman posted:A camera is just a fancy box that captures light. It's the light it captures that make the image, the box itself is useless for anything except being a carrier of media. While some cameras have more buttons than others, they are all still just boxes that capture light in some way. People worry way too much about the box and way too little about the light that hits it and that worries me. Available light sucks when you know how pretty it can be once you augment it with some gorgeous lamps. Yea, with proper light you can film anything on almost anything and make it look gorgeous. But some digital cameras handle low-light in phenomenal ways, which would be the main purpose of upgrading your digital cameras (Maybe concert footage, night-time footage etc). And is also probably why we have more camera discussions in this digital age. I do prefer lens/light talk over cameras though. But I prefer editing talk over that, why is the editing thread so slow...
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
If you're shooing cinema, any sensitivity above 1,600 isn't going to improve anything in nearly all cases. you still have to light it and when it's that sensitive a lot of ambient light problems start happening that make the image look bad. So unless you're shooting concerts, documentaries, or the like, it's not really worth it to upgrade just because the camera can do 128,000 with little noise.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:Gaffers who can communicate with DP's in footcandles, I will refer for work until the day I die. ugh, i hate this. all the old dps i work with will talk in FC.. Talk in stops drat you!!! i started learning exposure on 500 asa film. I don't want to do the math of footcandles to aperature, it's the reason I have a meter damnit. I can tell you within a stop by eye exposure @ 500, and then compensate in my head as the iso values change. When I shoot, I don't say to my gaffer, hey, I need 125 FC on the fill..I say, hey, get me to a 4 there, they do, and then we focus up. If i'm doing a light plot as a gaffer OR a dp, I don't go in and write 300fcs, I write stops. I check photometrics of the unit, then convert fc to stops. stop with this footcandle nonsense for the love of god oh: also, filter compensation works in stops..acs understand stops but not ev (now I might gently caress with my next first and ask him the fc compensation on a nd. 9 or something)..etc etc... edit2: This thread depressed me. You're all camera nerds. No one is talking about the Kino Tegra, or the new Kino Celebrity, or the Arri L7-C...changes in camera tech are boring..cams change more then iphone models...lighting barely gets innovation, and everything is moving to low draw high output LED units. hard units, not soft units. the future is now. 5k of light on a 15a? you got it buddy! EnsGDT posted:It really makes me want to get my hands on the Arri master primes and Cooke S/4 and S/5 series. The s5's are sexy as gently caress. Cooke glass is my favorite by far. Red Pro Primes my most despised. Lately everything I do has been on cp2's..not bad, but they ain't cookes zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Apr 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
I've slowly getting into videography. Slowly growing from chucking GoPro's everywhere to wanting more balanced shots (sideline shots to compliment onboard shots would be nice) I have a tripod with a decent fluid panning head. This of course has me wanting something more serious that a P&S or GoPro to stick on it. Where can I find any information about entry level dual purpose cameras for photo/video? Are DSLRs still the go-to weapon? I notice a lot of low budget film making is done on 700$+ DSLRs. But I don't think I can stretch that at all. Ideally I'd like something I'd use and learn on (For both photoing and filming) for sub 400$ish. The cheaper it is, the easier I can talk myself into it. Ideally the camera would be able to do 1080P30. (1080P60/720P60 are big bonuses)
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:No one is talking about the Kino Tegra, or the new Kino Celebrity, or the Arri L7-C...changes in camera tech are boring..cams change more then iphone models...lighting barely gets innovation, and everything is moving to low draw high output LED units. hard units, not soft units. I'm happy to talk lighting! I've got two Tegras on the show I'm DPing right now and they've been absolute workhorses for me. If I didn't have them I'd probably either be sending light through way too much grid or bouncing them off showcard and I'd have to grip the poo poo out of them to contain them, which would be impossible in the small spaces I have to light. They really are pretty and pack a decent punch in terms of a 640 ASA rated Red MX. I think we should have a home built light discussion!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 01:31
|
|
|
With all this camera crap these days I'm gonna start shooting si2k out of spite.
Mozzie fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Apr 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
EnsGDT posted:I'm happy to talk lighting! I've got two Tegras on the show I'm DPing right now and they've been absolute workhorses for me. If I didn't have them I'd probably either be sending light through way too much grid or bouncing them off showcard and I'd have to grip the poo poo out of them to contain them, which would be impossible in the small spaces I have to light. They really are pretty and pack a decent punch in terms of a 640 ASA rated Red MX. I've been taking a bucket light with me on a lot of jobs lately. I picked it up from a dp I gaffed for late last year and every gig I gaff since has found a way to use it somehow. It's literally a white home depot bucket with a cutout in the bottom so you can use a practical or photoflood inside the bucket. Basically what happens is the light bounces around the white bucket and glows it, making it either a nice super diffed source, or a spotter "hard" light from the opening in the top when pointed. You can hang it easily since it has a handle on it, like any bucket. I'll usually clip unbleached muzzy on top for the open part..Toss a hand dimmer on it and as you drop color temp you'll get a really nice warm glow from the bucket material... Really quick easy DIY gag. Use it alot as a gagged edge light from a table lamp off frame..things of that nature. I find it excels as a nice side/edge. Super easy to make, cheap. Just need a socket, bucket, globe, saw, some gauge and an ez-on. Maybe 5-6 bucks of materials..ten at the most.. Bucket light! in terms of the tegra, i'm thinking about getting one. It's about the same as a 4x4 (about 1800-1900 for one unit)..The thing is, I don't know if I like that you can't pull single bulbs/header from it like you can on any non diva style kino. I find myself using single bulbs behind bars and such way too often to lose that ability. When I get off this show thurs I'll update this with a picture of it, though you can probably imagine it from the description. If any y'all are east coast based shoot me contact info. I'm non union, but I shoot, gaff, and 1st. I'm pretty set on who keys or bb's for me, but I'm always down to try new people out as thirds, swings and seconds on camera side. And if you can hit my min rate, I'm pretty open in terms of projects (to an extent) zer0spunk fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Apr 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 03:00
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:I've been taking a bucket light with me on a lot of jobs lately. I picked it up from a dp I gaffed for late last year and every gig I gaff since has found a way to use it somehow. That is amazing. I'm gaffing on a short in a couple weeks, I am totally building one for it. Thank you!
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2012 06:45
|
|
|
I'm at NAB getting drunk on Tiffen's dime. Which one of you daisies AC's for Miss Starling? Let's gently caress poo poo up!
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 03:27
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:I'm at NAB getting drunk on Tiffen's dime. Which one of you daisies AC's for Miss Starling? Let's gently caress poo poo up! I was there, drank beers, then peaced out. I was wondering where the hell you were at. EDIT: Starling didn't even show.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 06:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
ogopogo posted:I was there, drank beers, then peaced out. I was wondering where the hell you were at. He probably double dipped. You gonna be at the Angeniuexuxeuuxuwq booth tomorrow with him? I'll come say hi then. I haven't been this drunk in a minute.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2012 09:53
|
|