|
I still think a BMCC is a better camera to shoot with, even if you need a kludgy external battery to shoot with. The LCD screen is much larger and has built-in peaking, and while you are a bit hamstrung by a touchscreen menu to change some settings like shutter angle or ISO you only have to go into 1 menu level to change key settings. I actually have an easier time working with one because all the controls are at least in front of you, whereas the mk3 puts ISO and shutter speed on top-mounted buttons. The mk3 has the advantage in being full frame over the weird not-quite 4/3 of the BMCC, but for the most part I'll take the higher DR and ability to record until your SSD is full over having the wider FOV. And it still looks way sharper to me than anything Canon has. SquareDog posted:I'm nitpicking on how DSLRs just don't render colors well compared to much more expensive cameras, especially human colors, even in the footage you linked. The signature DSLR looks still comes through, raw can't fix that, the light still has to pass through cheap bayer filters and get worked through a cheap photosites on an underpowered device. And while the videos you posted show it was a great improvement over the h.264, it's still not really high quality like cameras worth ten times the cost of a DSLR. I think this might be a problem that is exacerbated by whatever mojo Canon does in their image processing pipeline, because even in raw stills I think skin tones are kind of bad looking - and it gets even worse when you look at underexposed areas. I know that out of the box the D800 and D600 produce more pleasing skin tones.
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 19:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
SquareDog posted:I'm nitpicking on how DSLRs just don't render colors well compared to much more expensive cameras, especially human colors, even in the footage you linked. The signature DSLR looks still comes through, raw can't fix that, the light still has to pass through cheap bayer filters and get worked through a cheap photosites on an underpowered device. And while the videos you posted show it was a great improvement over the h.264, it's still not really high quality like cameras worth ten times the cost of a DSLR. The best thing to do is look at the dng's people have linked from tests. You can play around with a frame in lightroom, photoshop, whatever- yourself. Also, you're seeing a 14 bit full frame sensor, diverted to a raw module where its downsampling to 422, which I'm assuming is a limitation based on card i/o. I can't imagine you won't see true untouched camera raw if bypassed directly into a ssd recorder. I agree with you, every sensor has somewhat of a bias based on all kinds of factors, making them similar to film stocks in a way, but color reproduction isn't a huge deal with grading. If the information exists it can be altered. Something you see as an issue, I see as a two second change in tint and vibrancy in any half way decent color application. here's an actual test of the bmcc vs the hacked 5d...
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 20:29
|
|
|
Regardless of image quality, a 128gb 1000x CF card costs ~$350, for the same price you can get a 480gb SSD that will offload MUCH faster. I wonder if Canon knew that offloading raw video was a possibility and thus crippled the SD slot on the mk3, because being able to record to SD media would have pretty much killed their C100 sales. 1st AD fucked around with this message at 20:53 on May 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
What is the go-to mid-range camera these days? Is it F5 and then everything else? I'm in a bit of a transition period. We currently have an HPX-500 that has been a workhorse, an AF-100, and a D800. The 500 doesn't make it out of the closet much. The 100 is our go to, and the 800 does double duty. We shoot a lot of wildlife and low-light and we have a ton of Nikon glass. We need another A cam to hold us for 5 years or so. Something with proper XLR and all the layout you'd expect on a camera being used in at times challenging situations. The F5 seems about as high as we could hope to reach dollar wise. I'd be looking at replacing with a camera that could hold it's own for another 5 years like our 500 did. I'm doing my research but I'm curious what the collective wisdom is.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:We shoot a lot of wildlife and low-light and we have a ton of Nikon glass. You wouldn't happen to know how well the AI-S 600/4 and 800/5.6 perform with teleconverters on, do you? I'm going to be shooting for a bird-heavy documentary over the next year, and we're exploring our options for 1000mm+ solutions that resolve well at 4K.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
What am I missing? Why is RAW 422 to a CF card THAT much more exciting than RAW 422 via HDMI out to a Ninja or whatever?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 01:25
|
|
|
Speaking strictly technically, Ninja's don't record raw. You can't get raw out of HDMI. Also raw isn't 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 or 4:2:0 because that all happens after it stops being raw. Recorders like the ninja are just recording the debayered information before it's compressed further by the camera body. Some recorders can record raw via HD-SDI but only if the camera was built to do so, like the Alexa of C500. So the ML firmware hack is the only way to get Raw footage out of a DSLR.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:You wouldn't happen to know how well the AI-S 600/4 and 800/5.6 perform with teleconverters on, do you? I'm going to be shooting for a bird-heavy documentary over the next year, and we're exploring our options for 1000mm+ solutions that resolve well at 4K. Sorry can't help there. We did have a Sigma 150-500 to see if we could cheat some telephoto out of cheap glass. That ended pretty much as you'd expect. Slow lens and stupid slow autofocus. So slow it just could not be used with birds. Also soft.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 06:24
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:What is the go-to mid-range camera these days? Is it F5 and then everything else? I'm in a bit of a transition period. We currently have an HPX-500 that has been a workhorse, an AF-100, and a D800. I would recommend the F5 for what you do. It's got some funky menu design choices but I think it works very well as a documentary oriented camera. It's light, small, sensitive, versatile, and all for the right price.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 07:09
|
|
|
Neither here nor there but I mentioned my movie being considered for special screening at Cannes, this has just been confirmed so I am excited!! Hopefully I can make it to the premiere  
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 08:49
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Speaking strictly technically, Ninja's don't record raw. You can't get raw out of HDMI. Also raw isn't 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 or 4:2:0 because that all happens after it stops being raw. Recorders like the ninja are just recording the debayered information before it's compressed further by the camera body. Some recorders can record raw via HD-SDI but only if the camera was built to do so, like the Alexa of C500. So the ML firmware hack is the only way to get Raw footage out of a DSLR. Raw out of a DSLR is always going to be effectively 4:2:2 because of the bayer pattern on the sensor though, no? That's why they tend to render skin too red. EDIT: I may be outing myself as a moron here but I'm not sure I understand the difference between "uncompressed" output and RAW from a DSLR. Can someone help me out? Chitin fucked around with this message at 17:04 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 15:18
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:Sorry can't help there. We did have a Sigma 150-500 to see if we could cheat some telephoto out of cheap glass. That ended pretty much as you'd expect. Slow lens and stupid slow autofocus. So slow it just could not be used with birds. Also soft. I've heard from a couple people who got decent results out of it by never zooming past 400mm or so, but I don't think I've come across anyone who's kept using it for more than a project or two before trading it in for something better. What's your lens of choice for extreme telephoto shots? Chitin posted:Raw out of a DSLR is always going to be effectively 4:2:2 because of the bayer pattern on the sensor though, no? That's why they tend to render skin too red. Edit: And no gamma curve, color science or degrain/sharpening has been applied to RAW footage - it's basically just a data dump off the sensor with no image processing. Moon Potato fucked around with this message at 22:12 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Chitin posted:Raw out of a DSLR is always going to be effectively 4:2:2 because of the bayer pattern on the sensor though, no? That's why they tend to render skin too red. It's confusing but I'll try to be clear and concise. Forgive me for the parts you already know. A phosite detects levels of light, but not color. over each photosite is a color filter which enables the photosite to "see" that color. There are only 3 colors of filters: Red, Green, and Blue. Hence RGB. a block of four photosites will have this configuration of color filters over them: B G G R This is called a Bayer pattern. An array of filters over a sensor, one filer for each photosite, is a Bayer filter. Side note: Notice that since a grid requires even numbers, one of the colors is used twice, which is green. Green is chosen because green is the largest visible color spectrum to the human eye. So when each photosite gets an array of light readings for one frame they only have light values, with an annotation that "this photosite is reading "green" But the color of each pixel hasn't been figured out yet. This is RAW. Sensor data that hasn't had colors figured out yet. After that the camera's internal computer will look at one photosite, look at the other photosites around it, and calculate what color that original photosite is supposed to be and make a pixel in that color representing that photosite. In essence, it makes an educated guess. Periods are spaces because of Something Awful's code .....[ ]............R [ ] [X] [ ] = B [G] B = [RGB value] of single photosite .....[ ]............R This is called De-Bayering, Once a Raw image has been de-bayered, it's not longer Raw. It's baked in. There are many different algorithms used to figure out a color, I used a simple one as an example. At this point it's an uncompressed de-bayered 4:4:4 image. Compression is used to give similar colors in the same region the same value, reducing amount of data being used, it also degrades the quality, noticeably if what is considered "similar" is a loose standard, but this also takes up the least amount of space and bit-rates. 4:4:4 is when four pixels have their color figured out and each pixel has a value for "Y" - black, "Cb" - blue, and "Cr" red. The thing is that the human eye sees the definition of colors only half as well as it sees luminance, or black and white levels. So they use less space and processing power on the image which be further degraded using a process called "chroma subsampling". This process uses the information for the two color values, once over two pixels instead of once per pixel. It halves the resolution of the color. Below is a 4x4 grid representing pixels and their YCrCb values. Yrb|Yrb|Yrb|Yrb ----------------- Yrb|Yrb|Yrb|Yrb ----------------- Yrb|Yrb|Yrb|Yrb ----------------- Yrb|Yrb|Yrb|Yrb ----------------- In 4 pixels there are 4 Y values, 4 Cr values, and 4 Cb values. 4:4:4 4:2:2 looks like this: Yrb|Y |Yrb|Y ----------------- Yrb|Y |Yrb|Y ----------------- Yrb|Y |Yrb|Y ----------------- Yrb|Y |Yrb|Y ----------------- Half the color resolution, which is fine because no one can tell the difference. Oldschool and/or super cheap cameras can shoot some form of 4:2:0. "How does that work?" you ask. "you can't just throw out a whole channel!" but they don't. Yb|Y |Yb|Y ----------------- Yr|Y |Yr|Y ----------------- Yb|Y |Yb|Y ----------------- Yr|Y |Yr|Y ----------------- This is noticeably inferior to the human eye, but it's very efficient. Why use 4:4:4 then? because it gives you greater color flexibility before you make your final render. Also it's good for VFX because green screen chroma keying needs all the color resolution it can get. And that's how babys are made. SquareDog fucked around with this message at 07:55 on May 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:05
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:I've heard from a couple people who got decent results out of it by never zooming past 400mm or so, but I don't think I've come across anyone who's kept using it for more than a project or two before trading it in for something better. What's your lens of choice for extreme telephoto shots? We currently don't have one. The big boys of the Nikon line are where we'd like to go but we don't have the cash for them at the moment. Right now the most we go is 150, or borrow a 70-200, we just don't have the lens we really need. Also the autofocus is when we try and grab stills. Fairly useless. It's good until you put a critical eye to it, then it's just a shame that the lens didn't help you out more.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
Thanks for your input. After some more digging, I'm finding complaints about purple fringing for the AIS Nikon super telephotos. I guess that means we'll have to try to hunt down a decent price on a used Sigma or contemporary Nikkor.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2013 21:16
|
|
|
Moon Potato posted:Thanks for your input. After some more digging, I'm finding complaints about purple fringing for the AIS Nikon super telephotos. I guess that means we'll have to try to hunt down a decent price on a used Sigma or contemporary Nikkor. You've been hearing that about the 400 and 500mm current Nikons? Hmmm. We were just considering that route ourselves.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:You've been hearing that about the 400 and 500mm current Nikons? Hmmm. We were just considering that route ourselves. Oh no, I was talking about the older manual AIS ones from the 80's and 90's (the 500/4 and the 800/5.6 specifically). The current ones have coatings made from magical pixies that kick chromatic aberration in the groin until it runs away.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 01:01
|
|
|
zer0spunk posted:some bts off my phone from a studio gig i did today..let me know if you guys want me to share more BTS pics..I usually try to get off at least one when i'm gaffing/1sting (if it's not an NDA type gig)... I just worked with this DP again today, so I finally got a link to the final product from this shoot. End result is a little over a minute, which is always fun when you shot out a 14 hour day with a gently caress ton of unused fisher 10 moves, but whatevs. Apparently this was selected for 2013s NAB Red Reel..Did anyone catch that at NAB and recognize any of this footage? I wonder if they credit the dps on it or they just use it to move cameras. technical deets: Shot on a 46-230mm Hawk Zoom, epic 5k ana. No clue on the compression ratio, I was gaffing. Ramps at 90,120 and 300. Very light grading from what I was told. We did everything on set. Shot on a cyc, units were all 5k and 10k tungsten heads with the usual shaping and rags. We got to try a few different looks including a frontal booklight and then various 8x's of different silks, lames, etc etc. All in all one of the more interesting shoots. Also the model was naked the entire day and it was end of the day cash. I could use some more of those in my life. Anyway, check it out in full res/full screen if you can. The detail on the Hawks are outstanding (for 100+ grand it god drat better be)
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2013 10:16
|
|
|
Just arrived in Cannes for the premiere of my movie, first sneak peek has been released: http://www.ropeofsilicon.com/seduced-and-abandoned-sneak-peek-clip-cannes-2013/ Also reviews so far have been good, here's Variety's review: http://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/cannes-film-review-seduced-and-abandoned-1200483798/ Tomorrow it's time to put on my tux again and walk the red carpet at the Palais, I'm pretty nervous. Biggest premiere I've been to so far! Can't wait
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Awesome man, looks great, and entertaining! Have fun at Cannes, hoping I get to walk that walk someday too. I'm entering a spec ad contest that has a grand prize of a trip to Cannes Lions next month, finger crossed that I get to walk THAT walk a month from now.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 02:10
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:Just arrived in Cannes for the premiere of my movie, first sneak peek has been released: Congratulations on all your success. It's fun/cool to watch you go from Forum-Sage to Accomplished Filmmaker.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2013 14:52
|
|
|
Thanks guys, it's been an amazing ride. Still getting over my hangover from the yacht party, I could get used to this Hollywood lifestyle. The movie turned out fantastic, so far all the reviews have been great too and it's getting a great buzz. Also it's been picked up by HBO so the future is looking bright. Did some meetings, had some interviews...it's wild! I really do think that anyone with a passing interest in films, and film making, will very likely enjoy it. There's a lot of really fascinating insights in how movies get made (especially useful for indy guys wanting to get some money!). It's also surprisingly funny. And I am very proud of how it looks, obviously. Interestingly I just found this interview I had to do for Canon. It was part of the deal, we get two free cameras and I have to do an on-camera interview about how awesome the C300 is. Producer didn't tell me this until we were shooting and I was not happy at all with doing it (kept putting it off, I hate being in front of the camera) but it turned out okay. I was really reaching for good things to say though, since I didn't actually like the C300 all that much but oh well. It's certainly not a bad camera but not the one I would've chosen. Anyway, yeah...this is a thing: http://vimeo.com/52699727
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 07:31
|
|
|
Your canon excitement is palpable!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 12:09
|
|
|
Congrats, Steadiman. It sounds like you're having a wonderful time, and well-deserved from the looks of the reviews.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
If you get the time, I'd love a write-up on how you took in the festival. A lot of people feel very differently about the experience of attending.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 08:38
|
|
|
I'm wondering if anyone here has had any experience shooting false-colour IR stuff on DSLRs? I'm working with someone who wants to develop a fantasy short next year and I've been looking into IR photography. I know that you can get DSLRs modified to shoot IR and then use different filters to achieve the false-colour looks, does anyone know if this works for video? There's this video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBJRlU6l2x0 but I'm more trying to get this sort of look:  Would I just need to put a colour filter on? There was this video posted on YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ssfd1thm8ts, a short reel someone had shot on 16mm Aerochrome, looks amazing and has that red IR look I'm trying to achieve. Thanks! Quantum of Phallus fucked around with this message at 10:14 on May 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 10:08
|
|
|
Slim Killington posted:If you get the time, I'd love a write-up on how you took in the festival. A lot of people feel very differently about the experience of attending. During the actual production period I was basically working every single day of the two weeks that the festival was on. We had, quite literally, access all areas. A couple of badges and we were allowed to go anywhere at any time. From the locked down hotels where the stars stayed (the biggest stars actually don't stay in Cannes) to the film market to the parties that are so exclusive that only a few people even know about their existence. It's a surreal experience simply because, as crew, we were kinda the outsiders. And as such I think most of us felt like we didn't quite belong. It had its advantages, of course. Because we were so visible we actually got a lot of recognition around the town, which was fun. There was really only one place that we were not allowed to go, without special dispensation anyway, and that was the actual red carpet at the Palais. We needed special approval to even stand on the edge of it and be allowed to film. And believe me when I say, the powers that be are in absolute control. As chaotic as the whole thing seems, it is actually very, very tightly controlled. I'll give you an example; one day we had decided it'd be nice to have a POV shot from one of the official cars driving up to the red carpet. Alec had a premiere to attend and we had official cars so we decided I'd stowaway inside one and shoot out of the window as we drove up to the red carpet. This is actually not allowed without permission! But we tried it anyway, figuring we'd be all stealthy. I cracked open the window just enough for the lens to peek out and hid most of the camera with my body as best I could while we made the drive up to the Palais. It all seemed to be going swimmingly and I was feeling like a glamorous secret agent, it was awesome. However within a minute the producer's phone went off and he'd gotten a text message from the organization! We'd been spotted! It was amazing how quickly they were on the ball, they could tell from the car's number exactly who we were and we were given an official warning. It's a good thing our line producer could convince them it was a mistake or they would've withdrawn our privileges and that would've been the end of our shoot. From that point on I realized how well this thing was organized, in spite of how chaotic it seems to be. Another thing I got to witness during the production was a bunch of these investor meetings. These investors come from all walks of life and their only claim to fame is that they have amassed a shitload of money during their life. This money gives them a lot of power since people will bend over backwards to get access to this money. This is how the situation can arise that a guy who made his fortune selling dishwashers can demand you change your entire script if you want to get some of his money. It's really quite comical. At that point you have a choice, either change your political thriller into a quirky romantic comedy and get an extra $20 million in your budget or try your luck with the next investor and hope he has better taste. This is pot luck. The majority of investors really are just bored rich guys, with very little film industry experience or even creative talent, who really want to be a part of the glitter and glamour of the movie industry. Then there's the Cannes that most people experience. The one I attended last week. The Cannes film festival all takes place on one giant boulevard, the Croisette. All the action is centered around this boulevard. Almost every hotel is filled with industry people and a lot of companies actually rent apartments and offices on the boulevard to hold their meetings and parties. I think quite a lot of aspiring industry people go to Cannes in the hope of running into someone of influence, this is a futile exercise. There's so many people there that the odds of meeting anyone are remote and the true elite do not walk down the boulevard for you to randomly run in to (if you could even recognize them), unless they're on their way to the next meeting (in which case they won't have time for you). The only way to get something done is through meetings and there's a lot of those. Really Cannes is two different festivals, there's the very public film festival with screenings, awards, and stars. And there's the much less public film market. The film market is actually the heart of the festival, this is where productions get sold and financed and it's a huge thing. This is also where the actual important people hang out and where insane deals get made. Of course if you really want to get to the heart of Cannes you have to get invited to the hotel meetings. This is where you'll find your Harvey Weinsteins and where you will get to pitch your $200 million movie. One of the biggest reasons, I think, that Cannes is such a big deal is because during those two weeks pretty much anyone who is anyone in the film industry is in the same, small, area so these deals are much easier to make and it's relatively easier to get to talk to these people since it's what everyone is there for. For the general public, Cannes is all about the glitter and glamour and insane wealth (to give you an idea, I saw four Bugatti Veyrons driving around there last time and the sea turns into a yacht parking lot during the festival, each more fabulous than the other! It is the richest place on earth during those two weeks!) but to the industry, Cannes is where your next movie can become a reality. Keep in mind there's a huge separation between the classes down there. And it really is a giant circus, there's so many people there that even the skankiest of prostitutes can make a lot of money! While visiting last week I was in a very fortunate position that I got to walk the red carpet and got to actually go to some meetings myself, which I unfortunately cannot say much about  . But on the whole, I was just another regular guy walking down the croisette looking for icecream. It was actually a very strange feeling to be there and not have all the privileges that I had before. There's a lot of self-congratulating going on and wherever you sit down, you will hear people around you talk about all the money they're spending/making on their productions. I really can't emphasize enough how many people are there, it is absolutely mind boggling. The overwhelming majority of these people are a combination of curious tourists and hopeful filmmakers who came to Cannes in the hope of getting in on one of those meetings. They rarely do. There's actually not that much to do as a visitor. Most of Cannes is just your standard sunny touristy city, only twice as expensive (and it actually rains a lot during the festival period!). You won't be able to get into the most interesting places so you are left with a little bit of beach, some expensive nightclubs, and a whole slew of restaurants. Standing in front of the Palais, screaming at stars that you can barely see, might be another activity you could try but that wasn't for me. If I was just a tourist and considering my vacation then I would not go there during the festival. Honestly, unless you have a reason to go there (screening, meetings, whatever) I would stay well away. Don't get me wrong, Cannes is a beautiful city to explore but there's lots of those cities down the Cote D'azur that are quite a bit cheaper and with more to do. So yeah, that's roughly my impression. Bit stream of consciousness so if you have any specific questions, feel free to ask. If I can answer, I'm sure I will To give you an idea of how busy it can get, this is the boulevard and us trying to walk through it:  In the background you can see the crowd we just came through, we became this airbubble of space in an ocean of people
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 11:15
|
|
|
Thanks very much for taking the time, good read!
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
Any cines/ACs here in Syndey, Australia? I drove my butt over here from wasteland Perth and I've been bumming around on Tropfest sets and a few TVCs but I figure it's time to get serious and meet some more people. ACS is nice and all but that's not everybody. I'm a first AC. Also congrats Steadiman, I have/have had a few friends over at Cannes this year and they were all star struck as hell. XTimmy fucked around with this message at 08:13 on May 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
Richard Mosse just shot a false-colour infrared short on 16mm Aerochrome  Also not sure if this is relevant to anyone anymore but I'm selling a can of 35mm film (400ft of Fuji F-500) over in the Gear Sale thread in The Dorkroom forum.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
A spec commercial I directed for Campbell's soup, starring one of our very own goons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oEO-LC4N9w It just won the ad contest I'd created it for, grand prize! They're flying me out to France this weekend to receive the award at the Cannes Lions International Festival Of Creativity. Shot on the F55 using XAVC HD with an Arri Alura 17-80. Also congratulations to said goon on his wedding last weekend! And check out my site if you are so inclined http://watcinema.com  And yes, that's a Red batt on there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
Man this is some good live-to-air Steadicamming, and no mistake. From the BBC's charity shindig Comic Relief back in February. http://boxx.tv/raising-the-bar-of-live-to-air-steadicam/ Would something like that be done running backwards, or running forwards with the camera pointed backwards ("Don Juan" style I believe Garrett Brown called it?)
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Jesus, with all those pillars and narrow hallways he had to through at that speed, I don't see how he could do that shot without running forward. Even with a spotter you could still clip something pretty easy. Edit: Yeah, looking at the shadows he's casting, I'm pretty sure he's shooting "Don Juan". Slim Pickens fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jun 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:A spec commercial I directed for Campbell's soup, starring one of our very own goons. Congrats, that's awesome!!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:A spec commercial I directed for Campbell's soup, starring one of our very own goons. Madly jealous. Congratulations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Congrats Squaredog! Well deserved! You're gonna love Cannes. Do yourself a favor and take a nice camera with you and go explore the old side of Cannes over by the church on the mountain (you can see it from the Palais), it's gorgeous!thehustler posted:Man this is some good live-to-air Steadicamming, and no mistake. From the BBC's charity shindig Comic Relief back in February. .
Steadiman fucked around with this message at 11:03 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
He's also confirmed it was Don Juan on Steadiforum. Thread here: http://www.steadicamforum.com/index.php?showtopic=17676&hl=%2Bdom+%2Bjackson I'm doing some steadicamming today so I thought I'd take my rig out and do a test today around work. I'm obviously nowhere near as good as you guys can be, but I'm getting better. I can definitely see some improvement everytime I go out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FyTuOCm_tA I particularly thought the bit near the end following the woman was good. Also the caption at 1m13 should say "running" but I messed it up in FCP. There's a bit of roll sometimes which I think is down to the weight on the bottom not being right Today I'm going from outside a building to inside which should be interesting, as I don't have any controls on the gimbal so I'm not sure how I'm going to handle the transition, I'll need to find a happy medium between the two scenes (exposure, filters etc) and then let them fix it in post. thehustler fucked around with this message at 11:19 on Jun 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 11:16
|
|
|
Forgive my ignorance, but... "shooting Don Juan?"
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
Camera facing over your shoulder while you are running forward. Name was invented by Garrett Brown I think
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 12:39 |
|
|
We're just an in house production unit, but we've been going bonkers with jellyfish. I think we did not bad with this one... http://youtu.be/Mssq2Sp1a0Q Used combo of d800 and af100
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2013 18:26
|
|