Messed up the previous thread because I had to redo the op after accidentally making it too long.
Previous thread >>4383164

Last thread was great, can we top it?

Okay experts of /vid/, give me your hardest truths.
>made a low budget feature film
>just finished editing
>haven't submitted to any festivals or screened it yet
Should I research some relevant festivals and then just blindly submit it to them? Should I hire a pr consultant to handle this for me, spending assumedly thousands in the process? Or should I bypass all of that and just try and set up some local screenings and accept that I won't make any money?

>>4391824
Is it your first film?
Option 1, gonna cost some cash to submit, then throw it on Tubi

Second film?
Option 1 and 3, theater rental will also cost cash but it’s more of a vanity/celebration moment than money making, then throw it on Tubi

Third film?
You kinda already fucked up and should’ve hired them during preproduction, do this only if you think there’s remotely a chance to make money off this film (genre, big hook, etc). Otherwise, just throw it on Tubi

>>4391826
It's my 2nd film. 1st barely counts but it is what it is.
You don't think there's any value in reaching out to a pr consultant? Aren't they basically the only way to screen your film in a festival that's actually worthwhile?

>>4391833
>screen your film in a festival that's actually worthwhile
Define “actually worthwhile”. You’ll need to have already had them in your pocket during preproduction, you need ATLEAST a b-level actor in your film, etc. Define “low budget” too, I’m assuming a lot here.

>>4391837
I was thinking something *like* tiff, sitges, raindance etc.
The semi-indie well-known festivals that curate low-budget films of questionable quality without recognisable actors, as well as the bigger stuff.
My film is super low budget (sub £10k) but I think, maybe naively, that isn't obviously so and that most people would assume it had a budget north of 50k.

But maybe this is a good point. A pr agent doing their job properly would probably cost more than I spent making the film...

>>4391842
>tiff, sitges, raindance
lol, lmao even
those are out of your range buddy
look for smaller ones

>>4391860
But if I got a pr manager, wouldn't they be in range? I've seen some of the films that air at these festivals, and they're crap from a technical perspective as well as on an artistic level. No matter how biased/deluded I am, I know my film is better than that

But how much influence does eyour average pr manager actually have? Do they get films into festivals by having the right connections or is it just a case of knowing the right festivals to blindly submit to based on quality?
Do you need specific pr managers to get into the above ones or can any competent one do it?
And how much does this shit cost? They never state their rates and I'm scared of being laughed away/rejected if I try and enquire

Does anyone know any UV filters that don't flare up at night ?

>>4391842
lol
lmao

I have an AG-DVX100 and I want to make a film with it. I was gifted the camera when I was in highschool so it's sentimental to me and I want to use it. I used to have basic understanding of uploading the footage to my old pc with a firewire port and editing on old 00s software. What's the best way to edit and use the footage today for modern audiences?

>>4391919
>What's the best way to edit and use the footage today for modern audiences?
What you did back then is still the best way around it. Get a PCI firewire capture card for your PC and a cable. Capturing via firewire provides original quality as recorded to the tape. You only have to make sure to process the telecined 24p/25p correctly in your editing software so you don't accidentally lose half the fields or have framerate problems.

>>4391870
I don't know anything about pr managers, producers are the ones who do this stuff and who have connections
Blindly submitting regardless of if it's with a pr manager or not is gonna be a tricky one
And the quality of your film is practically irrelevant unfortunately, connections are king
I guess just suck it and see

>>4391919
>AG-DVX100
A kino machine: https://cinema-scope.com/cinema-scope-magazine/tiff-2014-horse-money-pedro-costa-portugal-wavelengths/

Test

Which digitally cinematographed film has nailed the Black and White?

Most of digital bw look flat asf bros. Why is that? It is so easy to make digital bw look good in photos.

>>4392479
A Cold War and Roma both spring to my mind. A Cold War is kind of mid otherwise, but it looks nice. Roma looks brilliant.

But like everything it comes down to preference. They don't "look" like film because they aren't trying to. If you just want b&w that looks like film, it's painfully easy but they don't go for that look for a reason (possibly the same reason why they moved to colour film over b&w in the first place).
If you just want to argue that film looks better than digital, go back to /film/ because this isn't the place for that.

>>4392494
>If you just want b&w that looks like film, it's painfully easy
How?

>>4392497
Apply the resolve film look simulator, adjust the contrast and bump up the grain. Maybe soften the image before adding grain if you want to be really authentic.
Colour is a little more difficult because the colours acted very weirdly/uniquely in film and a lot of the admiration is just nostalgia for the flaws caused by the dated development process. People who "love" the film look don't tend to love modern films shot on film because the process has been so cleaned up that it's very hard/impossible to distinguish from digital.

>>4392479
I disagree, I see a lot of digital bw that jacks up the contrast to hell and back (I guess since they don’t know what else to do with it since it’s bw, might as well pump up the contrast!!)

>modern films shot on film because the process has been so cleaned up that it's very hard/impossible to distinguish from digital.
This is very true. Modern film stock itself is so fucking clean compared to what it used to be, combined with everything else.

>>4392516
Second part meant to quote >>4392500

>>4392516
The flatness is in highlight

Lifeless

Flat puke

>>4392518
>>4392522
Trying to emulate film highlight roll off?

Quick Q... is anyone here a Youtuber? I'm starting out and I'm overwhelmed and I don't know what's important to pay attention to and what's not important. I'd like to turn it into a career and grow mu channel.
Are there any books/videos/courses on how to succeed?

>>4392545
Hi, I’m peter mckinnon

Be sexy that’s it or you’ll end up like tony and simon making videos telling kids to use auto ISO

>>4392547
kek'd.
I used to be subbed to his channel long time ago. Unsubbed when the fame got into his head. Still check out few vids when someone links them to me but man... he's changed.

I think digital b&w looks great

>>4392479
MacBeth
The Lighthouse
The White Ribbon

>>4392545
keep making shit, audio is more important than video, the algorithm works in mysterious ways

>>4392521
i saw this in the theater, this is cherry picking you faggot

>>4392545
what kind of videos are you making? what niche?
make sure you deliver on your thumbnail/title expectation within a few seconds (or preview it or at least talk about it) or people will click away
other than that just be good somehow (stimulating, interesting, beautiful, have some tits on there, etc)

The outline of my script for a shortfilm is ready but I don't have the balls to finally sit down put that shit in order because I keep thinking about how I have no money, no camera, no actors, no audio, no crew...I see no point in completing the script. FUCK! I also have the fear of writing too.

I'll probably JUST DO IT tonight.

>>4392599
>The Lighthouse
>The White Ribbon
Both shot on film
>Macbeth
>the Macbeth where there's a basketball American playing the ye olde Scotsman for some reason
Don't know, don't care but lol@ you for watching it.

>>4393054
>I keep thinking about how I have no money, no camera, no actors, no audio, no crew
You’ll continue having none of those things if you can’t even complete the script

>>4393067
I am sorry for saying mean words, anon.

>>4393070
Apology not accepted until your script is finished

>>4392949
If you make any videos that people actually care about YouTube will block your channel for violating some stupid policy they just made up or refuse to monetizing the video. That is if you make videos anons wanna watch—if you make shill shit for normied YouTube won’t care and let you puke out video after video as you lose your creative drive because you make the bland stuff for normies that YouTube loves not the edgy stuff for anons that you probably want to make.

I refuse to put my work on Tubi because I hate the idea of ads interrupting my film

>>4393074
Unless you pay for Vimeo or the person watching your stuff pays for no ads or you host your video on your own website, you can’t avoid ads ruining your film. The internet isn’t about creativity and sharing anymore. It’s all about ads or getting people to pay a fee to avoid ads.

>>4393076
You can purchase the digital file or disc directly from me, or yes I’ll have it on Vimeo without ads

>blackmagic pocket 4k gets a permanent price drop
kek, blackmagic must be making every other camera manufacturer seethe so hard

>>4393466
i want my cinemadng back you cunts

>>4393466
>Buying the pocket 4k over the Pyxis
You guys don't actually do this, right?

>>4393501
Since Red ain’t in business anymore so I don’t see the reason why blackmagic can’t put cinemaDNG back on their cameras unless, of course, some technically limitations is what’s preventing them from bringing it back since they no longer have to worry about Red suing them.

>>4393574
Cinemadng, unless I'm mistaken, wasn't removed due to red. It was removed in the pocket 4k at the same time braw was introduced and, again unless I'm mistaken, had had the option to compress it up to 4x.
That's the part that would've been messy for them. There was never a problem with it in the og pocket I don't think because it was ever compressed in that.

There's no real reason to put regular cdng in their cameras when braw exists. It's fucking huge and a pain to work with. And there's no reason to undermine braw (which they probably spent a fine penny developing) by reintroducing compressed cdng to their cameras.
>But they may as well put it in their cameras for the few people who want it since adding uncompressed cdng would cost nothing
True. But. and I'm completely guessing here, it could cause confusion. Cinematographers and videographers are not "smart" people. If they see a format that is "uncompressed" and takes up more space, they will assume it's better. And so the 'serious' filmmakers will just use cdng which will lead to frustrations and a bad user experience. And then they switch over to red or arri and the experience is pleasant and they move away from blackmagic.
Don't give them the option and they have to use braw instead and they get a nice lovely experience (and literally everyone I hear talk about it says braw is a joy to use, second only to redraw). Pretty sure this is why the best quality of braw is 3:1 compression too.

Can anyone tell me why the banding on my camera disappears at 1/40 but not 1/60 orr 1/50? I'm in the US so everything I've read says it disappears at 1/60, but it's still visible, especially for my desk lamp

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	motorola
Camera Model	ThinkPhone by motorola
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Sensing Method	Not Defined
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	23 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	4096
Image Height	2304
Image Orientation	Right-Hand, Top
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2024:12:17 08:43:21
Exposure Time	16666667/1000000000 sec
F-Number	f/1.9
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	388
Lens Aperture	f/1.9
Brightness	0.8 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	D65
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	5.56 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	4096
Image Height	2304
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>4393584
Forgot video: https://youtu.be/rhtJAY6HlFA?si=vq5fshGMbtV8Dhcu

>>4393577
Since Red is no longer in the picture why can’t Blackmagic make a lossless version of braw for people into vfx. Or is it hard to make lossless law work with the 4k or 6k or 12k camera. I know when I got my pocket 4k it came with cinemaDNG before the update that added braw. How hard would it be for Blackmagic to make a lossless version of braw?

>>4393539
I unironically bought the 6KFF over the Pyxis. Cheaper (even when buying cage and accessories still came out cheaper) and being able to carry it on a strap around my neck and not draw attention is 100% worth it

>>4393593
3:1 is considered "lossless" as far as I'm aware.
They don't do uncompressed for the reasons I stated above. As well as risking people actually using it and thinking it's necessary to get the best quality, it would increase the data rate by 3x for literally no reason. And it would also risk overheating because of this. Again, it's about optics. If you give people the option to do something, you risk them actually doing it and then complaining about the obvious flaws. If there's something that's objectively better in every way, don't give them the worse alternative.

A better question is can they make braw into "real" raw since the patent is no longer an issue? No idea. Seems like there's no reason why not but also, is there any point? As far as I can tell, there's literally no benefit to 'real' raw over braw.

>>4393613
>And it would also risk overheating because of this.
i had a pocket 4k on launch and didn't have this issue

>>4391803
I jjust took videos with my shitty 2012 GoPro for my Final. You know what, out of the park. Bc bitch, transfforms, jack the colors, layer 5 or 6 of those on top of ea other, and create collages, + tie it all together with some stills & analog film scans, and it doesnt matter what fucking cameras you used. I'm making fucking art here, not some boring faux-journalism stand-in for reading a book. Just read a fucking book.

>>4393072
I still haven't started it...

>>4393732
Then I’ll say some mean words- you son of a bitch. Write the script you son of a bitch.

>>4393584
>>4393585
What sort of light are you using? I would avoid using LED and florescent for video indoor like that but slower shutter speeds help negate the flicker. Absolutely fuck governments for trying to kill glorious tungsten lighting also, the more I think about it, the more I think they're trying to alter people's state of alertness or something with that flickering bullshit.

I have discovered that I don't enjoy fimmaking. I was only after money and fame.

It's over.

>>4393804
Good, better to realize this now.

>>4393732
what got me to do mine finally was advice from the book "naked filmmaking": just write it out of order. decide some plot points you want in there, write those first since you know those already, and then just fill in the gaps. once I read that it felt really easy to go and write mine.

I just got done filming my first outdoor scene actually. shit felt more real, but there's a lot of stuff I hadn't considered before:
I'm pretty sure I had the cops called on me. I shot in a residential area on a street with a dead end, and a cop car rolls by shortly after first shot, passes me without any obvious eye contact, goes down to the end and u-turns, and leaves in the same direction. Maybe one of the houses felt creeped out as I did start out pointing at one waiting for my actor's car to roll by, I realized it and turned the camera down until it was there. idk might just be me being paranoid. of course we weren't doing anything illegal, it was in public.
I kept running back to my car to look at my storyboard. I'm assuming you guys carry yours? I could put mine on a phone or tablet and maybe put a sling on the tablet but I like the paper and pencil and being able to erase and change on the fly and I don't really like digital drawing. What do you guys use? my google results were shit, except maybe clipboard with strap?
I brought a small whiteboard to use as a clapboard but just for the information parts and didn't use it at all as it was also in my car, and time was precious as one of my actors (my son, a child) had tantrumed when presented with today's shoot, even though he was eager af soudning last weekend and the weekend before, and the weekend before.
I set manual focus for my first shot but forgot to check it for the subsequent fucking shots. I need a checklist.
It felt really cool to yell "cut" and "one more take" a lot though, shit feels so real now, also this is my first time shooting with a storyboard as I just winged it last time with the screenplay.

>>4393942
Congrats on filming something. Yeah there are plenty of apps you can use for story boarding on your phone/tablet. Can also take pics or scans of drawn paper/pen storyboard and mark off digitally. Good job working with kids, I’d never fucking do that shit.

>>4393819
Should I continue with this guilt?

>>4393970
sometimes you only enjoy something once it's done, and the sense of accomplishment comes
sometimes you only enjoy something when you're good at it

>>4393970
Absolutely not. Money and fame can cone from many other means. Any movie you make for the sole reason of seeking these things will be a massive piece of shit that shouldn’t exist in the first place. Do the world a favor and don’t add on to the mountains of shit that already pollute the earth.

>>4393970
Yes. But you’d probably need very stiff drinks or hard drugs to drown out the guilt. But Hollywood does the exact same thing—check out “Leaving Los Vegas” if you don’t believe

I want to recod travels handheld. Is there anything that meets all of these criteria:
1. 2160p/24fps or better.
2. Good image quality.
3. Good image stabilization (mechanical or via crop from 6K+)
4. RAW-like output to sd card (previous camcorder created h264 which couldn't be improved without reencode)
5. Auto-focus. Auto-everything really, I just want to point and record.
6. Easy to carry (camcorder-style would be ideal)

From what I researched nothing meets all of those.
- Sony/Canon camcorders: 1,3,5,6
- Blackmagic entry level cameras: 1,2,3,4
- Various hybird mirrorless cameras: 1,2,3,5

>>4391803
I'm asking here because professional video is fucking retarded.

So, I want to record videos of live concerts and recordings with a multi camera setup. Problem is, while recording I will be busy performing, so I need a solution to simultaneously record multiple synchronized video tracks go edit later. Since the venues will be pretty big (cathedrals, concert halls, etc.) I need equipment with SDI output to deal with the cable runs.
Now, recording-wise I know that the ATEM SDI ISO is my best bet for multi-track recording, but I have a big problem finding cheap cameras with an SDI output.

My only requirement is that they are 720p30 or 1080p30 and preferably in a camcorder style (integrated zoom lens, long lasting battery). I am finding it very difficult to search on ebay deals for this kind of hardware, do you have any suggestions?

>>4394403
Canon r5 does all that. It's not cheap though.
Better to just get a something like DJI Osmo Pocket 3 or even a gopro and accept 10bit log over raw.

>>4393730
>I'm making fucking art here,

Ok boss.

>>4394425
Watch your mouth, you’re talking to famed artist/genius Scott Barley!

how the fuck do you make any sense of where to start with this shit
does it even matter what camera to get?
I see FX30 pop up in my search
then I see a bunch of arguing with Blackmagic 6k and FX3 thrown in there

what would be the most important stuff to get on a 3-4k budget for making shorts, I wanna make some stuff around cycling and documentary stuff, maybe some interviews

filming dusk/dawn is always a cheat code, does FX30 suck at this?

>>4394486
>does it even matter what camera to get
Not really

>3-4k budget for making shorts, I wanna make some stuff around cycling and documentary stuff, maybe some interviews
Autofocus, lenses, lighting

>>4394504
What lenses are considered normal to have for videography/cinematography?
When I did photography I hated zoom and basically made sure to do everything with one prime lens for the entirety of a project.

What about sound? That seems like something people get mega autistic over.

I want to get into videography but don't get into gear masturbation. When I did photography I struggled not going down that route and it's complete fucking cancer to actually making stuff.

>>4394505
I don’t know what “normal” means.

Forgive me if this is a truly retarded question, but if I were to record 60fps with a 1/60 shutter, and then convert it to 30fps, would the result be identical to 30fps with the 180 shutter rule? Such as having the same motion blur etc.

>>4394414
Your cheapest option is miniature/compact Marshall cameras, many models have SDI outputs. Next cheapest is BM's micro studio camera or BM's studio cameras.
But I wouldn't advise that as there is a less costly alternative. Better to get HDMI to SDI converters from BM and use those to deliver SDI over the cable. It'll be cheaper and you can connect any hybrid camera you want.
https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/microconverters/techspecs/W-CONU-13

>>4394526
Yes. Each individual frame will still have been captured at 1/60 shutter, it's just that you're essentially selecting every other frame for the output to produce 30fps.

>>4394554
The problem with using a converter like that is that it requires its own power, nullifying the point of having a single camcorder with a big battery placed somewhere with a single SDI cable reaching the recording set-up

>>4394555
So I'm all good to just do that then? It's a limitation of a b-roll device I'm using, so it's all I can do.

>>4394562
You use a powerbank to power the BM micro converter. No need for mains power. Even a measly battery will last you whole day.
>>4394565
Yes, it will work.

>>4394486
Filmmaking is an art. Like any art, people disagree on the best way to do it.
The best place to start is to buy a (cheap) camera and film some shit. If you don't know what to film, try recreating some of your favourite scenes from your favourite films. You'll very quickly learn what you (as in you specifically) need to improve your videos.

>>4394581
>try recreating some of your favourite scenes from your favourite films
In fact, a lot of hack Hollywood pieces of shit have made very good careers out of doing just that

>>4394505
nigga, you are going to film in a variety of situation, not to mention having to record sound. you WILL masturbate over this because, guess what, it's fucking hard

>look through old videos I made
>they're full of attempts at innovation, playing with different ways to construct a scene and move a camera - always looking for that perfect shot
>sound is badly produced, pacing is off and writing is weak
>but there's a real hunger there to do something different and cool without being too different

>look at my current stuff
>sound, writing and pacing is massively improved
>but there's none of that visual innovation anymore
>everything is so much more restrained and lacks that raw feeling
Getting older sucks. It must be weird for someone like Scorsese to see Taxi Driver compared Killers of the Flower Moon and compare the different ways he'd approach a scene. But it's much much worse for a complete nobody to see how much they're changed without making it anywhere.
/blogpost

>>4395200
I have your same post few some time ago. Was it last year or the year before that?

Why don't you just steal shit? Or watch film totally out of your tastes?

>>4395201
holy shit I can't write english.

>>4395201
I can't tell if you're saying you went through the same thing or you think I posted the same thing previously? I haven't posted this before, I don't think. The closest off the top of my head was when I encouraged someone to make something now not later because your style will change over time and what you make now won't be the same as what you make later even if it's the same script/concept.
>Why don't you just steal shit?
I probably should steal more. I take obvious inspiration from a couple of filmmakers (never Tarantino) but the stuff I want to make is stuff that hasn't been done before. If it's been done before then it bores me.
>Or watch film totally out of your tastes?
I watch everything. I don't have specific tastes because I'll watch a romcom, a musical and a horror film in the same week just because they've recently released. I have films I prefer obviously but only a tiny precentage of the stuff I watch actually inspires me. And an even smaller percentage inspires me in a positive way. Most inspiration I get is wanting to avoid doing something in the same stupid way I just saw.
Like watching capeshit and you see one really cool scene and feel that scene was wasted on Dr Marvel 5 so you want to write something that does something similar, but without being attached to something so fucking stupid. Or you watch a fight scene that just doesn't work and you study to figure out why it didn't work so that you never repeat that mistake.

>>4395200
>sound, writing and pacing is massively improved
>but there's none of that visual innovation anymore
>everything is so much more restrained and lacks that raw feeling
This is modern filmmaking in a nutshell. But even argue that the sound mix is worse, writing is garbage, and pacing is TikTok fast forward. So everything is worse in general.
Good job on slightly improving, though.

>>4395200
>Scorsese to see Taxi Driver compared Killers of the Flower Moon and compare the different ways he'd approach a scene
Also a matter of him getting older and not giving a fuck anymore, as well as modern cast/crew not having the same level of talent/drive in general.

got an nd16 for Christmas whooooooo
feels nerve wracking putting it into the matte box filter frame

>found out about dead pixels/hot pixels and etc caused by filming
Okay, how do I avoid this? Film short videos so the camera doesn't get hot?

>>4395210
Dis (You)?

>>4395210
>>4395289
Or this?

Damn he got the receipts lol

>>4395289
This happened to me but with music. I ended up so limited by my technical knowledge that everything I made became boring.

>>4395289
That's not me
>>4395290
This might be. Actually it almost certainly is. Fuck even my self-criticisms are fractalising.

>>4395260
hybridfag problems

>>4395357
True enough. So avoid filming at length then or what?

>>4391803
Looking to upgrade my EOS-M and 22mm lens.
I do filming for an automotive repair YouTube channel.(makes money)

looking at a EOS R8 or R6 mk2
is body image stabilization worth the extra money??

>>4395468
the r6ii has the same great type of sensor+cropping stabilization mode as the nikon zf and a7cii, if you’re careful its as good as a gimbal and crops out IBIS corner wobble with wide angle lenses

However putting the r8 on a gimbal would probably be cheaper and still do a better job in challenging situations

>>4395468
do not buy the 28mm pancake for video. focus motor noise and focus breathing on it are terrible. this is a 20 year old design limitation of FF pancakes. not even nikon Z mount could fix it.

>>4395473
>r8 on a gimbal
all my stuff is static shots, it's more when I have to use a on-car mount for weird shots. any movement in the car will make my EOSm wiggle a tiny bit.

>>4395474
>focus breathing
I don't use auto focus, the camera doesn't know where I need it to focus.
I need something in the 20-30mm range to get the shots I need.
inside a car I often don't have room for any type of zoom lenses.
are there better lenses that are as wide as the pancake lenses?

>>4395413
Reduce resolution, reduce framerate, pick a "simpler" codec (h264 instead of h265) or framerate (24fps instead of 30/60), keep as many parts as open as possible, e.g. don't close the lcd screen, keep the connector ports open. If possible, use an external recorder and don't engage internal recording of the camera. If you're shooting indoors and have an air conditioner, then set it to cool the air.
You can also rig a cooling fan to cool the camera body more.
Have spare cameras on set so you could reduce the time taken between having to wait for the camera to cool down.

>>4395499
Also, when outdoors, set your camera up in a shaded area, so it isn't in direct sunlight.

this lense any good?
looking for a 22mm ish wide angle lense with image stabilization.

using a 22mm pancake lense, works well, I just want the stabilizer.

>>4395479
Man i thought you were doing cool shit

Just put a 16-35 f4 on a sony a7iii and call it a day. f4 UWAs are compact enough for tight spaces.

>>4395524
with automotive YouTube channels, we're not doing fancy filming
I just want higher quality basically.

>>4395523
forgot pic.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Android TP1A.220624.014.G991USQS5DVL1
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	983
Image Height	1333

>>4395525
>a7iii has ibis and 4k - $1000 or less
>16-35 f4 is $500 and lets you get close and show lots of vehicle at once at 16mm, ie for filming undercarriage and interior work, or less car at 35mm, ie to show engine work
>sony cameras can use hot shoe mics without extra cables so there’s less to get caught on stuff
>full frame shows clearer detail and dynamic range, shining flashlights around dingy car guts is a high dr scene
>good autofocus so very little camera fiddling
Its not an artists ideal rig for zooming in on 24mp stills but it’s practical for 8mp (4k) video

>>4394403
>>4394416
Since Red is bankrupt now it is possible that the DJI Osmo or maybe even the GoPro could get cinemaDNG raw now that Red doesn’t block anybody from using cinemaDNG. Unless Nikon is blocking other companies from using raw video now that they own red—but I don’t think Nikon is going after people who use cinemaDNG aggressive like Red used to go after people who use cinemaDNG.

>>4395540
There has never been anything stopping any manufacturer from implementing cinemaDNG raw. I don't know if you're the same person from before who was claiming this but it's not true and you'd have to have a complete misunderstanding of the situation to claim that.
Red's patent referred to compressed raw. CinemaDNG raw isn't compressed. Blackmagic compressed it for their pocket 4k and then removed it due to red.
The reason cameras don't use it is because the file sizes are so fucking huge that 4k raw (and most sensors are larger than 4k these days) typically has way too high of a bitrate to write to an sd card and has huge risks of overheating.

If random cameras wanted to implement raw, they're far more likely to introduce prores raw (which is shit). Or maybe, a free standardised compressed version of cinemaDNG raw will be developed for cameras to use (I don't know if the one blackmagic developed is free for anyone to use).

The reality is that raw video is a meme for most people. If you really care about raw, you either buy a blackmagic or you're working on high end sets. But the majority of the time, it's people who haven't even finished a short film who are whining about wanting raw video

Unironically- what is the actual useful purpose of raw video?
It can’t just be changing white balance.

>>4395549
>what is the actual useful purpose of raw video?
Being able to brag that you only shoot raw.
(Honest answer: it gives you more latitude and control. No baked in sharpening/noise reduction/compression. Theoretically you can get more out of your sensor if you know what you're doing. At worst, you're not losing anything so there's theoretically no downsides - except for the huge file sizes and the performance cost of any decent noise reduction software which you'll need to apply yourself)

>>4395554
I shoot braw and honestly have no fucking clue what I’m doing with noise reduction and sharpening, so my footage still looks like shit

>>4395542
By cinemaDNG I meant lossless compressed raw not uncompressed raw.

>> 4395554
The two main reasons somebody might want raw is flexibility while color grading or the ability to change white balance both things that are done in post. People into VFX work or green screen work want lossless raw. Video people use raw to fix things in post that they didn’t fix in camera. So people who want to push things hard in Resolve’s color page or people doing heavy VFX work would want raw w/o using it to only fix white balance or exposure issues.

Most photo anons want raw video since they are used to editing raw photos.

>>4395593
My braw also looks fucked up because I know next to nothing about the proper way to sharpen or do noise reduction.

>>4395614
>>4395614
I meant
>>4395554
Not >> 4395554

Any tutorials or articles regarding just a basic “standard” pass to make on BRAW for noise reduction and sharpening?

>>4395499
>>4395503
Based, thanks man. Any recommended max record time?

>>4395614
>My braw also looks fucked up because I know next to nothing about the proper way to sharpen or do noise reduction.
doesn't sound like a problem, sharpening and nr are memes. light the fucking scene

>>4395777
Then why does the same scene look good when I used my Nikon d7200 to film it? Isn’t the bmpcc 4k supposed to have better image quality then a Nikon DSLR? Doesn’t the bmpcc 4k have a better codec with a higher bitrate and bit depth—10 bit for the bmpcc 4k or 12bit for the bmpcc 4k if you shoot in raw and only 8 bit for the Nikon?

>>4395676
That solely depends on your gear and environment. Some cameras have hard limit record times to not overheat (like 30mins), other cameras will stop recording/switch off if possible overheating is detected. I don't know what gear you have, so you probably would have to experiment or google that information yourself. Some people on youtube do overheating tests, you may try searching for your camera model there. Otherwise experiment and see how far you can push things before the camera becomes hot/switches off. Measure those times and then plan your shoots accordingly.

>>4395787
The bm needs color grading to look good. You need to mess with it in resolve. The Nikon is baking in a LUT at capture time. The footage doesn’t hold up if you try to grade it. So the starting point is better but it’s also basically the same as the end point. The bm has a neutral starting point but you can push it in any direction much further.

>>4395818
So if I fuck it up in camera and I used the Nikon I’m screwed but if I used my bmpcc 4k I could fix it in post, if I know what I’m doing in resolve. But if I don’t know how to use resolve I’ll end up making everybody look like ompa lumpas so I think that the bmpcc 4k is shit when it’s just my color grading skills that is shitty.

>>4395837
If you fuck up it’s fucked up either way, braw or nraw isn’t going to save shit footage. You’ll have a little bit more latitude. But you still need to get it close in camera.

>>4395787
on the nikon everything is baked in. what you see is more or less what you get, but those files will fall apart if you push them too much. you can make good stuff on that camera, but you have to set everything up in front of the camera like it's the final. that means the colors you want have to exist in the scene and if the skin is bad it's done. on cdng and braw you have more flexibility, but also a lot more room to screw it up in post. just because you can sling the files around doesn't mean that there aren't ideal exposure settings for your shot and you will still lose shadow/highlight detail or have noise issues. exposure value and contrast across the skintone range still kinda matters. of course rtfm and check the ire you degen this is still way easier than shooting super 16 fml

>>4395929
>of course rtfm and check the ire you degen this is still way easier than shooting super 16 fml
Based. I finally got a modern digital camera after shooting nothing but 8mm/16mm film for the past 7 years. It’s absolutely fucking insane.

>>4395952
>after shooting nothing but 8mm/16mm film for the past 7 years
Did you teleport from the 60s?

I've been thinking lately
becoming a boomer with the 7 year itch
acting is the perfect way to cheat, is it not?
socially acceptable and doesn't count, you can kiss and have a sex scene with an actress
and who cares about the penetration, just fap furiously after
it would be too obvious if you are also the one writing/directing/casting/etc
several acting couples become real couples later on anyway

>>4396012
Got a Canon 814 for cheap on ebay and loved the look, then got a K3 for cheap as well and absolutely loved everything about it. I swore off digital and didn’t look back…until I started getting tired of how difficult the entire process is. I came across some articles and videos of what the current landscape of digital cameras are like, and how film emulation now is pretty much identical to the real thing, so I said fuck it and caved. I still occasionally get the awkward feeling of “shame” for not shooting film anymore, but when I do A/B comparisons and absolutely love the results I’m getting at a fraction of the difficulty/time/money spent, I end up sleeping fine.

>>4396018
You'd have to find a filmmaker to help advance your cause. But yes, this is certainly an idea. If you're willing to fund it, you're basically set.
I'd love it if a boomer came up to me and offered me a few thousand bucks to make a film with the only condition that I cast him in a romantic scene with an attractive actress.

>>4396020
That sounds like a novelty idea desu.

>>4396019
Did you ever feel "alone" when shooting on film? Like no community, no support, only you being interested, etc.

>>4396032
Not at all. The film community is actually pretty nice and welcoming into their elite club. And it’s nice feeling elite, holier than thou, snobbish, etc lol

I feel more alone in the types of films I make- very arthouse/experimental/avant-garde, bizarre themes and dark subject matter, noise music as the soundtrack, difficult watching experience, etc. Not a big community of filmmakers or audience in that style lol

>>4396032
Hipsters who jerk off about physical film are a dime a dozen. Anyone who actually makes films quickly learns that saving $2k/day with no loss of quality by shooting digital (and a much easier editing process that allows for more control over the image) is an offer that you'd have to be retarded or sickeningly rich to ignore.

>>4396035
Oh but they love to jump through hoops to try to argue it doesn’t cost more or it’s AKSHUALLY CHEAPER in the end.
The movie ‘Strange Darling’ had a reverse effect on me- the opening title card has in huge caps “THIS MOVIE WAS SHOT ENTIRELY ON 35MM FILM”. What a fucking pathetic, compensating, childish plea for attention. Made me want to run away from film as fast as I could.
Movie looked like shit too.

>>4396036
That movie was fucking terrible. It hurt my eyes and the cop scene was written like an angry incel’s ragebait greentext instead of believable human behavior.

And anyone who thought the girl was the villain was a fucking retard. Who hunts down and continuously provokes a serial killer? Every death after the nurses was manwhore’s fault.

>>4396035
I do both. I jerk off into my own face about how great film can look (if you’re not retarted and shoot film but then make it look just like every other digital print in post anyway), but I shoot every idea digitally first bc el cheapo. I think of them as demos, just like in songwriting. Then if some cunt with $ wants to write a check I’ll buy film, rent a camera & lenses and shoot the bitch properly. But there’s no point in spending the time & $ on shooting every idea on film before it even has an audience.

Lads I want good video on the go (and the occasional photo)
Currently choosing between the S9 and XM5
Any thoughts or suggestions

>>4396192
definitely not the s9, that thing is a joke.

probably an a7cii, a6700, or zve1. the hotshoe mic thing sony does is a big deal that more people should have copied.

>>4396192
Sony a6700, literally any G zoom lens (completes the weather sealing) and an ecm-b1 or something similar. 80% of good video is good audio. You are not fucking with brackets and cables on the go.

>>4396207
>>4396211
What's wrong with the S9? I have an S1H so thought it might be good to match video etc should I ever need to

>>4396219
oh and the L mount is good for adapting my vintage lenses to, should I want to

>>4396219
Lumix tried to copy sigma’s flop and purposefully gimp connectivity, because real youtubers put everything in a cage yknow. Ass rolling shutter too.

Also L mount has shit for small lenses and aps-c is ideal for video

>>4396221
Any mirrorless can. Hell the ZF is fine for video and a lot better than the s9 overall.

>>4396219
>What's wrong with the S9?
Some people love panasonic. Some people hate them. The guy who said that is a sony dickrider, so you can probably ignore him.
I think, bang for buck, it's probably a fantastic camera at like £1000 or something. I have an s5ii and it's (mostly) great.

The reality is that most cameras these days can do basically the same thing. It barely matters what brand you choose (aside from nikon, iykyk). You just have to figure out your budget and essential features (sensor size, ibis, autofocus performance etc) and then you'll probably see that there's a choice of 2-5 cameras that you can basically pick at random.
The pros of the s9 that would influence me are its open-gate 6k and the ability to shoot dci 4k. But then you have the canon r8 which shoots 4k60 without a crop. And the sony a7cii which oversamples from a higher megapixel count. But they're basically all the same.

>>4396232
DCI is literally useless dude. 2% crop.

They’re selling a re-release of the sigma fp only worse for actual use and better for measuring spec sheets and wanking to things that no one will ever benefit from (6k video lmao, ok who watches your videos larger than the vimeo player?)

There are cameras for people who use cameras and then there are cameras for people that zoom in for anything but checking focus

>>4396238
trve. you’re a workflow user or a spec sheet loser.

>>4396238
>I don't care about feature so it's useless
lmao jesus christ imagine being this fucking dumb

>>4396266
No one cares about the feature that would even consider using that camera. Recording DCI and cropping to DCI are identical to everyone but spec sheet reading faggots. 6k and 8k video are totally useless unless you are in hollywood because almost nobody can watch video over 4k outside of a theatre, and guess what, nobody is using a fucking s9 in hollywood, its out of workflow, doesnt integrate with their extensive arri gear. Get a grip. You're the kind of person to buy a 100mp camera for instagram, 16x20s, and wallpapers for their 8mp display. Get a grip gearfag.

>>4396331
Good luck getting consoomers to understand this

They will be buying and reccing 12k video soon and almost 100% of them will still be delivering videos to be watched filling less than 1/2 of a 4k screen

Audio is way more important than resolution and built in aspect ratios (just crop)

>>4396339
With 32 bit float and a shotgun mic, audio is solved. Next?

>>4396343
You’re on the go. What is the better audio solution - one with a cable flying out of the camera, or one without that you can just take out of your pocket and put on the camera?

This board shills panashit and hates sony while ignoring canon (despite canon being the actual reasonable competitor), but sony cornered the portable market for a reason. The hotshoe mics are as of yet uncopied and canon is fucking retarded for not shoehorning an extension for contacts into the hot shoe or a port below it

>>4396207
>>4396211
I heard the a6700 has overheating issues

>>4396344
is it better than a zoom m3?

>>4396331
>if I don't care then no one cares
kek one day you'll grow out of that autism hopefully

>>4396343
bad audio has always been pilot error anyway

>>4396391
youtube says every other camera has overheating issues and every camera ever made needs to have a fan and cooling pipes so youtubers can shoot 4k120 for 8 hours to show youtube how cool and professional their gear is.

i cant imagine anyone normal shooting hours of 4k60/4k120 in real life. dont give a shit unless you are. and re-evaluate why. slow motion bird memes? post stabilization cope? or because youtube told you it was more professional?

>>4396412
its true, no one cares about video resolution. they literally can not tell. it is impossible to tell 8k from 4k when your video is, at best, going fill a full 4k screen someone is sitting 2 meters away from. you can mix 1080p and 4k footage and no one notices because most frames are motion blurred anyways and they’re so far away from the pixels the eye physically can not see the difference. resolutions beyond 4k go to those people who pause and zoom in on footage, and do alli/longgop comparisons for… their talking head vlogs totally lacking vfx.

>>4396391
All affordable compact large sensor cameras will overheat in 45-60 minutes shooting 10 bit/high speed video. Cooling features add bulk or cost. They are sold to people making 15 minute family videos and amateur films naturally done in many takes at the most, not professionals filming wedding ceremonies and news footage straight through.

>>4396466
>the only reason to shoot in a higher resolution is to deliver in a higher resolution
Tell me you're a child who doesn't work professionally without telling me you're a child who doesn't work professionally

>>4396483
if you need to crop for any reason but aspect ratio i really feel sorry for whoever paid you. shaky camera? shit framing? if its just apsect ratio no quality loas.

or dear fucking lord, dont tell me you’re some downsampling mtf chart signal noise ratio faggot, cretins like you belong in the van

there is hardly any benefit to 4k as it is. 6k and 8k are for techies when other specs stop making them hard.

>>4396485
Dude, you're a fucking retard. Grow up and learn literally anything before doubling down on your retarded reasoning. Your dumbassery is just dragging down the entire thread.
I don't know what's happened in your life that the only joy you get is from looking for literally any reason to seethe at everyone who isn't you but cut that shit out. No one cares. If you want to be a retard, go for it. Just stop subjecting us all to it.

>>4396490
You can not give me one single valid reason to need more than 4k unless you are delivering and displaying over 4k. Not one.

4k is already too much resolution for almost 100% of viewing conditions that apply to things with budgets under a million. You can safely crop 4k down to HD and no one will notice because they literally can not see it. The pixels are thrown away.

>>4396491
>You can not give me one single valid reason to need more than 4k unless you are delivering and displaying over 4k. Not one.
I don't want or care to. Unlike you, I'm not so insecure that I need to fully approve of everyone else's production choices or else throw a tantrum. I'm also not gonna write an entire essay trying to teach you about productions that aren't yours and the value of doing things differently. Seriously, again, grow the fuck up.

>>4396493
You still cant justify spending thousands on consooming crappy cameras with useless specs.

Just one valid reason to need more than 4k. No copes, no pixel peeping. Just one valid, useful reason to need 6k or 8k video. What is it?

Stop arguing specs and recommend some other compacts

>>4396495
I’m not the guy you’re talking to, but I legitimately love 6K for cropping and adjusting the frame in post. It’s honestly been amazing to me to able to adjust the frame to get exactly what I want, or even reframe and get something different than what I originally planned for, with no drop in quality. Don’t really use it for correcting shaky cam since I shoot tripod 99% of the time. Agreed that even 4K deliverable is overkill most of the time, but then being able to recrop 6K to 1080p offers even more insane possibility in post.
Apologies if this makes you mad for some reason, but it blew my mind using it this way for the first time and I continue enjoying the possibilities it offers in post.

>>4396495
more accurate keys >;-)

>>4396505
>6k is for being unable to frame a shot properly
Kek

>>4396512
VFX and post quality is a more solid argument than anything else but it does stand that the accuracy won't be perceptible unless viewed on a very large, very good screen or projection. 6k should really be marketed to filmmakers, and in a fair world corporations would label high end features as professional use only with a footnote explaining how professional use actually differs (not more pro betterer) to discourage overspending and prevent NPCs from burdening themselves with a "rig" just to shoot yootoobs.

>>4396495
I shot a film a few months back, strapped for time, delivering in 4k. We ended up missing an important close up. Thankfully we shot in 6k so were able to zoom in on a medium shot. Otherwise we would have had to spend a lot to reshoot the scene. It would have been more convenient if we shot on 8k.
>>4396527
I think the other guy's right. You're actually autistic.

>>4396207
>>4396211
>>4396344
Tell me more about this Sony hotshoe mic...

>>4396534
If you have a snoy the hot shoe is also a mic port for some very versatile sony brand shotgun mics. They are good enough for most people but won’t please major gear snobs or serious professional filmmakers as only mics, just hobbyists and lower end professionals who have less varied needs. That’s ok because if you’re on the go you really can’t do better without making the setup larger and more complex. The ecm-m1 explicitly does 24 bit audio. The rest are 16 bit i think.

>>4396576
Don’t forget the XLR adapters. How do they not break off more often? Useful but so big…

>>4396527
Based autist. Appoint this man as an EU regulator so he can make applel and snoy seethe.

>>4396391
Unless you're going to be filming really long videos, it really won't. I do some travel videos sometimes but I usually do like a 2 or 3 minute b-roll of freeways or streets at night or the area I'm at, then the rest is handheld on my phone (since it's far less obnoxious).

>>4396576
How do the Sony mics compare to something like a zoom m3?
>>4396599
I usually shoot for a few minutes at a time, sometimes but rarely longer, don't do high fps slomo etc

>>4396606
>I usually shoot for a few minutes at a time
You'll probably be fine then, I think most of the people talking about overheating tend to do 20+ min videos.

>>4396607
Still a little concerning, sometimes I do like to shooting longer and in general I just like to have the ability to do so should I wish to do so...

>>4396609
Depends on location and ambient temp. In shade or indoors in moderately cool conditions, you're fine.

>>4396607
It doesnt toast until closer to a one hour take of 10 bit/4k60. Nobody does a one hour take except for those weird youtubes that follow ecelebs around and professionals that wouldnt buy a fucking hybrid anyways

>>4396641
I've done over one hour takes with my s1h + atoms before and neither of them overheated

>>4396641
>professionals that wouldnt buy a fucking hybrid anyways
They literally use hybrids as b-cams on hollywood film shoots. Be less of a pretentious snob.

>>4396671
a few people do this now because some high end hybrids are so video-centric that photography use is an afterthought. such an afterthought that they are getting quite large and bad for travel. and all of them are panasonics - plus one canon.

the fact is sony ticks no video-first box in any price segment /p/ is interested in. sony alpha is super stills forward brand, and their cheap video stuff in the fx and zv lines is clearly optimized for amateurs and exclusive of serious professionals (ie: hollywood). they don’t sell anything truly professional, not even for wedding videos, for less than $3000.

>>4396682
>they don’t sell anything truly professional, not even for wedding videos, for less than $3000.
so who does

>>4396684
Canon (great camcorders, usable but not the absolute ideal for stills) and panasonic (the stills featureset is noncompetitive and they are gigantic, but at least they arent nikon)

Sony’s business strategy works though, most people doing video are nowhere near professional and are not making films. They are making funny cat videos. They are popular and their market segmentation lets them focus on making compact cameras that won’t spook peoples cats.

>>4396682
The one that sprung to mind was actually the way they used the sony a7siii on Civil War (along with a dji ronin 4d). It depends on the set. I personally have considered buying a sony twice but went a different brand each time.
(Side note, I'll be very surprised if the lumix gh7 doesn't appear on most sets within the next year just because it has arrilogc and people tend to be lazy.)

But sony have made such waves with getting the venice onto big hollywood sets over the last 5 years (which canon really struggled with and I always thought it was a shame). I think almost every big set that uses one probably has an a7siii or an fx3 on site too.

>>4396687
Based cat vids

>tfw just dropped another 70 bucks on festival submission fees
jesus, this is so fucking stupid
I just really hope to get a half-decent film premiere this time so I don't end up killing myself out of disappointment
they can't all be scams right?

>>4396964
>only $70
That’s usually the price for one festival for feature submissions. Did you get early birds or are these shorts?

>>4396975
2 festivals. One of them was earlybird and I got a 30% discount, came to around 30 bucks. The other was 40 bucks, quite late.
Feature film, small-to-medium sized festivals.

>>4396983
Best of luck. My last short I submitted to 13 total, got accepted to 2, still waiting to hear back from 2. So did better than average and better than what I expected, especially considering the short was pretty unusual/avantgarde.

>>4396998
1 in 6 was roughly what I was getting for my last couple of shorts so if you get any more you're already beating me. And those tended to be kinda crappy festivals anyway.
I used to make the mistake of submitting to a lot of festivals that I could find a discount of in the deals section

>decided to convert some b-roll using Handbrake
>realized the conversions have washed out colors for some reason
Goddamn it. What should I be using for transcoding in the future then?

Anyone else think the new beetlejuice movie looked cheap?

>>4397094
Majority of modern film and television looks cheap/amateur/shoddy. Modern crews are too inexperienced, too rushed, too bloated.

>>4397094
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure it was purposely trying to imitate the janky low-budget feel of the original

I want to experiment a bit with shooting some documentaries of historic places. I have a Fuji X100VI with not so bad video specs (6.2K internally at 30p in 4:2:2 10-bit color, inbuilt ND filter). Can this work out? I'm mainly worried about the IBIS not being all that good. Some first tests ended in lots of visible small shaking.

Other option is to buy something like the osmo pocket 3. Has its own gimbal, not so expensive, good video specs but tiny sensor.

I know something like the FX30 would be better in every way but I don't want to invest into another system.

>>4397310
Your camera sounds great. Stop worrying about whether or not it's good enough and just use it. You'll find out quickly if it's good enough

>>4397313
This. Also, shoot 6K then correct shake in post for 4K render.

>>4397310
6k matters a whole lot less than accurate focus pulls, half decent audio, and stabilization lmao

>>4397322
DONT do this, the stupid shutter angle to take the jitters out of post stabilization looks like shit and anything else looks even more unnatural. Get a gh5 + kit lens and a rode wireless mic and put it on a cheap gimbal. Good enough to film upstream color good enough for you.

>>4397333
But upstream color was shit

>>4397333
>shutter angle to take the jitters out of post stabilization
What do you mean by this

>discovered Shutter Encoder
This thing is so good, it's helping reduce the size of old footage and the inbuilt LUT and gamma features are perfect for a lazy quick edit.

>>4397310
Better spend some money on a tripod or monopod or little gimbal, the camera is fine just get a stabilisation system

>>4397333
upstream colour was filmed on a gh2

Lads should I get an a6700, a7cii, or S9 for good video on the go

What's better between the zoom m3 vs the Sony b1m or b10?

>>4397387
The a7cii if you’re not poor and flip a coin (or do some reading and thinking) for the other two if you are. They have their own sets of gimmicks and failures.

>>4397518
One of these is a generic cabled mic and the other two are brand specific cableless travel mics.

>>4397518
b1m is better than b10, but m3 is better than both.

>>4397540
doesn't the m3 have rf and handling noise problems
>>4397536
what's your reasoning behind the a7cii, usually the a6700 seems to get recommended over it for video

>>4397542
>rf
Seems like only early models were affected, if you're buying now it's unlikely the mic should run into such problems
https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/news/mictrak_notice/
>and handling noise problems
So do the Sony mics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IpksNgtb7Q
I have no idea why the soft mount was built and why was it continued in newer mics, but locking it in place fixes things for the better.

>>4397542
The a6700 has uncropped 4k60 and vlog NPCs dont care about anything else other than higher framerates to smooth out their walkie talkies

>>4397544
Did you check what you were linking

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	144 dpi
Vertical Resolution	144 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	750
Image Height	701

>>4397554
So it's fine?
>>4397544
Ah nice, so the m3 is better then?

>>4397559
They are about the same, the sony b1/m1 is somewhat more versatile with pickup patterns and doesnt need any cable gayness. That video with lolnoviews is just some guy who got his direction settings backwards.

>>4397570
Oh wait fuck, i got the m3 mixed up with another mic, i should not drink and post
No those microphones are not even comparable. The zoom m3 is not a travel mic, with the recorder its semi-pro kit, if you want on the go its playing in another league. I’d just get the sony and have the m3 when I needed it but the only audio I do is with a shure sm57 entirely off camera. The m3 clearly kicks the little sony’s ass but if i vlogged and walked around i wouldn’t want a complicated kit, b1m or m1 depending on pickup pattern preference. Every test clip of the b1m sounds better than the m1.

>>4397570
>>439757
>with the recorder its semi-pro kit
Maybe I misunderstood something but I thought the m3 was a self contained recorder + mic?
I think I'd also prefer the m3 because I could use it with my other camera, I believe the Sony mics are just for Sony cameras

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D850
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 20.0 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	45 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3661
Image Height	3250
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2023:07:14 10:07:48
Exposure Time	5 sec
F-Number	f/16.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	80
Lens Aperture	f/16.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Subject Distance	0.50 m
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash
Focal Length	45.00 mm
Comment	Do not steal this photo. Musikhaus Thomann will get mad.
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3385
Image Height	3385
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Manual
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>4397387
fuck i might actually get the Fuji m5 after all, it's just so much cheaper
And combine it with a zoom m3

My camera can only film in Full HD (1080p). What would be better.. upscale it in Topaz to 4k or invest in a newer camera that is native 4k? Is there big of a difference? I kind of like the idea of only shooting in 1080p because I can safe tons of storage, faster to edit and only upscale the final footage.

>>4397726
h.265 is actual magic when it comes to file sizes and means 10bit 4k videos take up a lot less space than you might imagine.
Personally, I think upscaling is "cheating". It feels dirty to me. If it works for you then it works for you though. 99% of people who watch anything you make will watch it in hd or lower resolution. So 1080 is still fine. But 4k gives a quality that you can't really understand until you're working with the footage.

So you're almost definitely fine to stick with 1080 but your inner video nerd will appreciate the jump to 4k when/if you're ready. (And on that note, 6k is rapidly becoming the new standard for production anyway)

>>4397540
Apples to oranges

The m3 is the microphone version of a cheap and awful full frame camera
>so much room to fuck up, 32 but float!
>but it picks up fucking radio
The sony mics are travel/vlog/home video mics that fully replace the one built in to the camera and are not the best ever but pretty idiot proof as long as you don’t get your settings backwards. They are imperfect, and their sole purpose is being small and not using extra cables to record to the camera.

>>4397731
>but it picks up fucking radio
I have an m3 and have used it extensively. I've never encountered this.

How is using the gh6 with Arri logc any different from using the color space transform (a few nodes would be needed to do this transform; first convert the braw footage from my pocket camera to blackmagic film and then convert blackmagic film to Arri logc) in Resolve to convert the braw footage from a bmpcc 6k into Arri logc? Wouldn’t both workflows give me the same results? Just slap an Arri lut on the footage to get an image in the Arri colorspace.

>>4397851
I can't say for certain because I've never tried using a log->arrilogc lut before. So this answer is dependent on how that conversion actually works.
But the short answer is that the arrilogc->rec709 lut isn't doing much, if any, work. All it does it add some contrast and interpret some things. The actual arri colour science comes from the arri raw->arrilogc process. The guy who made a popular arri conversion lut (Phantom) talks about the difficulties in matching their colour science due to the way it deals with tints and saturation as exposure changes.

So reverse engineering the arri rec709 luts is really easy. It takes minimal effort to grade your footage in a way that the arri luts will work. But they won't look like if you were shooting on an arri.
Conversely, the arri profile in the gh6/7 is the actual arri colour science developed with arri engineers. So it will look like it was shot on an arri (just with less detail in the highlights/shadows).
>tldr; it depends how good the conversion process you use is

Personally, while I love the idea of shooting on arrilogc on a gh7 just for shits, I don't think it makes enough of a difference. The blackmagic colour science is pretty comparable to me at a fraction of the price of an arri camera, and panasonic vlog gives plenty of latitude to adjust my image anyway.

>>4397743
https://www.newsshooter.com/2023/02/14/zoom-mictrak-series-rf-interference-issue/
they did a recall
shame about it picking up camera button clicks

you dont need 32 bit float. its nice but hollywood worked with 24 bit for years and no one noticed. the deity v-mic d4 (not mini) has better directionality and a better shock mount. most decent cameras record good enough 48k/24 audio internally but you can always get a cheap used tascam recorder (that also does timecode for better syncing). the m3s recorder doesnt support timecode.

>>4397869
You only need 32bit if you fuck up your levels. Hollywood can get away with 24bit because they get their levels right onset.

>>4397869
>This RF (radio frequency) interference seems to be limited to a select number of units that Zoom first shipped.
So literally not an issue for most people who have one and anyone who buys a new one? Why even bring it up then?
>you dont need 32 bit float.
You don't "need" most luxuries. But they help create better productions. Creating good films is more important than street cred from purist hipsters who hate innovation.
>>4397872
This is correct. 32 bit float isn't "necessary". But for low-budget productions and skeletion crews it's a life-saver. Kind of like autofocus for video. It's just one less thing to worry about if all you need to get good sound is to put the mic close to your actor and press record.

>>4397872
You shouldnt be fucking up your levels. Skill issue.

>>4397874
You need timecode far more than 32 bit float.

>>4397878
>You need timecode far more than 32 bit float.
You don't need either. Hollywood worked without timecodes for decades. It's why clapperboards exist and they still work perfectly fine.
I'd argue that timecodes help larger productions more while 32float helps smaller productions more. You can disagree all you want but ultimately it's subjective and comes down to everyone's individual workflow.
(Also, there are mics that have 32float and timecode capabilities)

>>4397882
There are *recorders that have 32 bit and timecode. You only need an analog mic lol. And to compare clapperboards to fucking up your levels. Bro.

>>4397094
>>4397094
They did the modern junk color of lighting and hdr grading. It was too vibrant. The original Film stock and vhs colors gave it the feel it originally had. The new release was basically "green rainbows, excessive contrast, and bright lighting in the afterlife." With the modern poor storytelling of too many characters. I feel if someone slapped a mild analog damage fx on it, it would probably improve it significantly.

>>4397882
Redpill: you only need to plug a decent mic into an a7iv. If not timecode is a huge benefit and should take precedence over 32 bit float (especially 32 over mic and recorder quality)

>>4397903
Why are you so anal about telling people where they *should* place precedence? Why does it offend you that some people prefer manually syncing sound for the safety of knowing their levels will always be perfect?

>/vid/
>so bad they NEED 32 bit float
Kek.

Protip: The Zoom M3 is too good to be true. Handling noise transfers through the shock mount. The recorder is bare bones. Pickup is sloppy. I have never heard a good loud event recorded with one. If you are shooting for quality its actually not that superior to plugging a microphone straight into the camera, 32 bits of crap is still crap.
You should be buying mics based on noise floor and range and buying recorders separately.

The zoom F3 is actually a good product and still does 32 bit float if you refuse to dial in levels. Very high quality preamp. Timecode and wireless are not the slickest experience but it is possible if you are really desperate for it, and it's an affordable recorder, what do you expect. Pick an F3 up on ebay for ~$150 and plug anything reputable from rode or sennheiser into it. Not too far off from the new, no sales prices of an m3 and you will be getting a significantly better built microphone and a superior recorder with zero issues instead of "some issues, but bro it comes with *feature*". You are also getting a setup that can adapt and grow instead of a mediocre recorder welded to a mediocre pseudo-shotgun mic on a crappy shock mount.

>>4397903
>manually syncing audio - a pain that can be done perfecly if you spend enough time in post
>recovering clipped sound - pretty much impossible, expensive software still can't recreate it as well as if it had been recorded properly
Yeah, no. 32 bit float is way more useful than timecodes for small productions.

>>4397911
>getting this buttblasted over people using devices you don't like to make better videos
lmao get over yourself

>>4397912
>clipping audio in the first place
its not hard, 48khz 24 bit is a lot of headroom
tell us more about the drunken slav you have waving the boom mic around

>>4397913
>Zoom corp viral marketer: WHAT? USED!?!?!? NO! BUY A NEW M3 FROM B&H RIGHT NOW! WE GOTTA MAKE MONEY! LET PEOPLE ENJOY THE PRODUCTS WE RECOMMEND
I'm not the zoom corp viral marketer recommending new junk from b&h vs a similarly priced enthusiast setup that is just... better. Why would you buy a welded together mic+recorder of questionable quality? You'd end up having to buy separate mics and recorders later anyways.

The mic and recorder combination of the m3 are just not very good, and the shock mount is not good at all. Its total crap. The mics quality is comparable to most $50 shotguns (but the mount is so much worse, too rigid to support the mic and recorder at once) and you can put the rest of the money towards a decent recorder that can stay on for mic ugprades and wireless and true stereo setups. The zoom F3 is one of the best field recorders money can buy and you can score one for $150 on ebay. Seriously. You can keep stereo, 32 bit float, use any fucking mic you want, go nuts. The M3 is a bad buy.
https://avisoft.com/recorder-tests/

>>4397918
>The mics quality is comparable to most $50 shotguns
This is just not true. I don't know why the m3 triggers you so bad that you have to start lying (I assume you're the guy who was whining about the radio signals above too) but I've actually used it and it's a very good mic. The difference is I'm not going to get mad if someone's not using it.
Stay seething

>>4397920
There's a subset of gearfags who get really autistic about policing the type of gear others use for some reason.

>>4397911
SoundDevices MixPre line is good too. 3 if you need an on-rig setup, minimum the 6 for actual location audio, more like the 10 if you want to do reality or narrative.

>>4397920
>This is just not true
It is.
>m3
>Microphone Sensitivity
-39 dB (Mid/Side-Bidirectional)
Microphone Max SPL
132 dB SPL 122 dB SPL
https://www.focuspulling.com/m3/
>in quick summary here, basically this mic will pick up on any buttons and dials that you lightly touch on your camera. Not good.

Rode videomic you can get for $50 off ebay:
>Amazing fucking rycote shock mount, zero noise
>max SPL: 134db
>actually specifies frequency response, dynamic range, and noise level honestly disclosed
>ZOOM DOES NOT DO THIS FOR THE M3 FOR A REASON. They only specify max SPL. I can not find a full zoom m3 data sheet anywhere. I can not compare them without telling you to go listen with some good headphones. Zoom m3 recordings sound like crap. Rode specifies freq response, dr, noise floor, everything!

>>4397926
>help i'm being policed
Better, more versatile things are being recommended over worse things. Shocking isn't it? The M3 is, wait for it - a bad product. It is horrible purchase. No one should buy it. It is absolutely worse than buying a separate recorder and a higher quality mic made by someone more reputable. Zoom is very good at stealing patents, I mean, copying preamps, I mean, making good preamps for a good price but not at mics.

Can you explain why buying an ok mic stuck to an ok recorder is better than buying an ok mic and a really good recorder for about the same amount of money?

A zoom F3+a rode videomic picked up off ebay from a quitter vlogger will run you $200-$300
So will an M3 mictrack
But the F3+Rode lets you swap mics around and use the same recorder, two mics, use wireless with the same recorder, etc... 32 bit float everything.

Explain why the mediocre zoom m3 which zoom does not even publish the full data sheet for is better than buying smart.
Hard mode: Simply admit that your employer would prefer people buy new M3 mictracks and profit zoom, vs buying lightly used kit off ebay and sending at least 87% of that cash to fellow americans

>>4397912
You can have both. I’d rather have good 24 bit audio and timecode than 32 bit and no timecode, but that’s just me.

>>4397935
>the m3 is bad because it picks up sound
Jesus fucking christ. Shut the fuck up. No one cares about your autism

>>4397942
>an on camera microphone picking up camera button and wheel noises is good!
You cant explain why its better but he can explain why its worse, and really thoroughly

Why doesnt zoom publish noise floor and frequency response data for the m3? Is it that bad?

>>4397944
I can tell you the sound quality I get out of it is amazing with very little effort or monitoring required. Your autistic grievances don't really change that. Stay mad

>>4397942
What advantages does the zoom m3 mictrack have over the recommended rode videomic + zoom f3 ebay score, and how to they compare to the benefit of having a 32 bit float stereo recorder for any mic you might use in the future?

It has stereo, obviously, but of a lower quality than a dedicated stereo microphone, and less control than two mono mics and a stereo recorder. I see everyone use mono mics.

>>4397949
>32 bit float camera button noises
so crystal clear
buy zoom my sirs

>>4397951
>pressing buttons in the middle of recording audio
We get it, you're a fucking idiot. Can you stop trying to make that everyone else's problem?

>>4397952
>no you cant adjust camera settings while recording!
oh so shock mounts exist for no reason then? why does zoom even claim they have one since it clearly doesnt work?

Can you answer >>4397950

>>4397955
>no you cant adjust camera settings while recording!
So I don't know what sort of idiot would place the mic so close to the camera as to pick up noises made (obviously that will result in bad audio? Did you know that if you cough next to a microphone it will pick that up too?)
Like, if your biggest criticism is that the mic can hear shit, that's not a criticism that's user error. But personally, the settings I adjust in a shoot are 90% controlled via a touchscreen anyway.
>shock mounts exist for no reason then?
Shock mounts are for shocks... What the fuck are you talking about? Do you just fundamentally not understand what gear is used for?
>Can you answer
I can' t give you any answer that will satisfy your autism. I've never used a zoom f3. I've used a lot of mics. A couple from rode, a couple from zoom, even a neewer one that's suprisingly good despite its price (but needed heavy noise reduction). The m3 is a fantastic microphone. Reliability and consistent performance are very valuable. It satisfies both. Accept it or don't (you won't but I don't give a shit)

>>4397961
>shill angry
Why does a microphone designed to be used on camera and advertise an isolating shock mount pick up camera handling noise?
Where are the noise floor and frequency response figures?
Why cant you answer and say why an m3 is better than a comparable mic and a better recorder?

Could it be a chinese company made an iffy product?

>>4397962
>Why does a microphone designed to be used on camera and advertise an isolating shock mount pick up camera handling noise?
Microphones are microphones. I don't know or care how it was advertised or how dumb you are with your inability to use products effectively. I know that using it to record sound properly gets great results.
>shill
Funny since you're the one who's seething at the concept of someone enjoying a product you have a hate-boner for. I'm just stating I like it.
Seethe harder (and please, for the love of god, fuck off and stop shitting up the thread with your essays of autism)

>>4397966
Do you think im the other guy? I wanted to know if you had well reasoned points to counter his but all you did was dismiss handling noise and say it works fine

I guess the m3 is just chinese plastic junk

>>4397967
I don't care what you buy. But if you're so retarded as to think that a microphone picking up noises nearby is a flaw then you really shouldn't be talking about microphone quality.

>>4397968
The entire point of a shock mount for a camera mounted microphone is not picking up handling noise
The point of a shotgun microphone is not picking up sounds from behind

You act like hostile chinese tech support
>my microphone picks up AM radio
>MICROPHONE PICK UP SOUND? WORK FINE. *sips rhino horn soup*

>>4397971
>on camera shotgun mic
>cant prevent the transmission of camera handling vibrations (a shotgun mic should not pick up camera handling ever)
>married to a soso recorder
>RF interference issues
>low sound quality, clips earlier with loud sounds especially in stereo
>basic quality specs arent even published
Hmmm. So how is this better than scoring a better made mic and a dedicated recorder on ebay besides shitty stereo? What is its advantage?

I've been putting my camera fairly close to an airconditioner lately to keep it cool during long filming, is this alright to continue doing? The camera isn't getting ice cold, but just a nice cool to the touch feel. I'm just a little worried about air being strongly blown on it but should I be?

>>4398059
The only issue I can think of is getting the noise of the air conditioner on your audio track.

>>4398059
make you get keep it nice and close when you are using a camera mounted shotgun to keep the heat down

>>4398059
>>4398134
And make sure to press the camera buttons in the middle of shooting as forcefully as you can. The air pressure from your finger movement will create an additional cool breeze

>>4398059
Inbetween shots I take the camera off the tripod and throw the rig into the freezer

Other than the m3, are there any other compact all in one(!) solutions to use with small cameras for decent (or dare I say good) audio

>>4398236
no

>>4398236
>>4398238
What about something like the DJI mic 2

>>4398236
Tape a zoom f3 to a rode videomic
$200 ebay score

ok niggers just tell me which fucking mic system to get with the a6700
m3, Sony b1/10, dji, or something else (not f3)???

Any Pyxis buyers care to share their thoughts? Thinking of purchasing one

>>4398420
No Pyxis, but I have the BMCC 6K FF and love it. Bought a cheap cage for it, problem solved.

>>4398420
I am waiting on the nexus camera. It’s a rehoused bmpcc 6k which can take mft lenses and pl lenses and it has an eND filter with it as an option. It’s supposed to get released Q1 2025 and I can’t wait for it.

>>4398436
You’ve been waiting awhile for this, hope it finally comes out

>>4398436
Just looked it up, that looks fucking sick, and the price is insane
Almost seems too good to be true...

>>4398436
>$3300
What's the catch?

>>4398442
>>4398474

The only catch that I can think of it that its vaporvare and never gets delivered because it never gets made or the company making it has manufacturing and/or delivery delays and you need to wait years to get it. Or, they get sued for violating somebody’s IP and they are forced to remove some features from the product because of the lawsuit so you can never updated. I don’t care about all of that. I just want it because it looks so sick.

>>4398134
>>4398137
>>4398234
gonna updoot this one

EDIT: thanks for the updoots back

>>4396588
> HDMI port
An HDMI port is for noobs. If you want to show your a baller on set get an unneeded and unused SDI port on your camera. Anybody who buys an SDI port for looks for a matte box for looks needs to go straight to the gulag and learn how to use a point and shoot or a cell phone as a video camera.

I got a light mount recently and it's cold shoe. Will this be fine connecting into a hot shoe camera? Just wondering since obviously the cold shoe mount is metal and I think it's going to be touching the pins, so I don't want to short it out and fuck it up.

How much of a difference does full frame vs apsc make when shooting video?

>>4398577
For video, APSC will be noisier than FF. Such is the APSC experience unfortunately.

>>4398579
>>4398577
But full frame lenses tend to cost more. Super 35 is the sweet spot. A lot of the best lenses cover a super 35 sensor without vignetting. If you don’t own lenses get the best sensor. If you own a lot of lenses you need to make sure that the lenses you own will cover the sensor so you get get the most out of your sensor.

>>4394403
The nexus g1 camera will meet all of your criteria. You’d need to buy the optional e-ND module for criteria number 5 (auto exposure) and you’d need to wait until they make the LiDAR module for that camera before you’d get good autofocus. Be warned they may never make the LiDAR module and if you want autofocus using manual lenses you’d need to buy some motors (from tilts if you don’t want to mortgage your house or car to them them) to make it work. There is no ETA on the LiDAR module right now. It’s a rehoused bmpcc 6k so it has awesome image quality and braw (so you can fix white balance issues in post.)

>>4394403
LUMIX S9

>>4398634
>every lens weighs a pound and is at least the size of a beer can except a plastishit fixed aperture 28mm
>no viewfinder no grip
Lol. Camera for gearfags.
>AS LONG AS ITS FULL FRAME! BIGGER NUMBERS! LOOK, 6K!

>>4398636
This is the stupidest set of complaints I've ever seen. As if anyone gives a shit about a lack of viewfinder for video. At least criticise it on the actual problems it has
>shit battery
>1 card slot
>can only shoot longop, no intraframe codecs
>no internal fan and will overheat if trying to record very long takes

>>4398651
>1 card slot
Of all the things that dont matter, this doesnt matter the most. Flash storage is pretty foolproof. It’s not 2008 sandisk.

Replacing one card frequently is better than constantly wearing on two. The failure rate is nonexistent.

>>4398653
I like having a second cardslot for 2 reasons:
>don't need to waste (as much) time changing cards
>some cameras allow continuous recording from one card to the next so you don't have to cut your take when you reach the end of your cardspace
I know a second card slot is also really important for wedding photographers and videographers. If I was shooting a wedding, recording a 1080p proxy simulatenously sounds like a pretty great idea since that way you've at least got something.
>The failure rate is nonexistent.
I've had a card fail before on a dslr with only one slot. I had to spend 30 minutes running home and grabbing a new one (it was a super casual shoot so I didn't bother brining a second card).
I don't think it's the most important thing in the world, but I understand people who swear by the need for a second slot.

>>4398662
Why would a paid videogrpaher rely on internal storage? Terabytes, fast terabytes mind you, are cheap.
>on a dslr
Older flash memory on older tech. The new uhs2 shit is basically immortal. I can only see it if someone is too poor to replace CfxA cards yearly.

>>4398667
>Why would a paid videogrpaher rely on internal storage?
Have you not seen the wedding videographer market? Like 90% of them just use a canon r6ii or a sony a7iv. The "advantage" is that they're small cameras, compared to cine cams, and have ibis so the shooter can spend the entire day shooting handheld without drawing too much attention.

>>4398668
Puleez 90% of them have a cuck cage on the camera because its a more cinematic way to attach a microphone.

what do we think about the panasonic s5iix? at 1700 dollars it seems like it cant be beat, even at the used market. even used, it's a steal

i just want a full frame compact-ish camera with good AF, IBIS, and can record directly to SSD.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	860
Image Height	860

>>4398683
I genuinely think it's probably the best value camera on the market. The equivalent sony and canon cameras cost about 1000 bucks more (a7iv and r6ii).
>good AF
It's usable. It's not "good". I'd take canon's af over it any day. Haven't used sony's but I understand it's basically on par with canon's.
The major downside of the s5ii/x is its rolling shutter though.

>>4398669
About 75% have a cuck useless matte box on the front of their consumer camera so they can justify a higher price because they look like a professional cinematographer to the bride and groom!

>>4398683
Essentislly a video centric a7iii with a7iv codecs. And some shitty oversized lenses because panasonic knows you’ll just use EF and PL adapters. Dont pay more than $1150 for it.

If you’re paying $1700 just get an a7iv its better in use despite the edge case spec sheet niggles.

>>4398683
>about to blow $2k on camera, cage, and ssd
>wants to skip the cheap external recorder that is universally an improvement
panasonic people are always so weird.

What would be the best cinema lens set to buy for passion projects if price was no object?

I want a versatile set of cinema lenses (cinema primes or maybe even a cinema zoom) so I can do a wide range of projects without needing to rent cinema glass for each passion project.

What should I look for in lens set. A super sharp and clinical lens can be make a cinematic image if I use the right diffusion filter or OXF plugin right.

Some lenses I am wondering about are:

The Mieke MFT cinema lens set (the new Veydra)

Arri Master or Ultra primes
(How do the Ultra primes and Master primes compare with each other?)

Cooke mini s4

Super Ballard

Arri Alure Studio Zooms

Rehoused Nikon Zooms

>>4398687
>r6ii
seems to be the same price in the used market, yet the panasonic still beats it out in so many features, while having better dynamic range... all while you can buy it new for the price of a used one, insane.

>>4398687
have you seen the IBIS on the panasonic? i'm no shill but for my work it's a game changer to not have to rig up shit.

>>4398690
for my use cases i dont need an external monitor and i want to keep the footprint of the camera slim. i can use anything to mount the SD card onto the camera, even some fucking velcro or a half cage

>>4398690
External recorders are clunky extra devices that need to be mounted and charged (and require separate batteries).
If you power them all via a vmount battery, that's several hundred more pounds/dollars and an even bigger weight which requires a proper rig to properly mount. All-in-all, it completely destroys the compact appeal of using an mlc in the first place instead of a cine cam.
To deny the appeal of decent internal codecs is to fundamentally misunderstand the market. It's why blackmagic has been so successful and why the bm recorder doesn't completely destroy their camera sales.

>>4398699
You are right anon. You can’t sneak a rig with an external monitor into an area that doesn’t let people film stuff in it. (The Super Bowl a concert etc.) but if your camera looks like something tourists use such as a black magic pocket camera or mirrorless camera it is much easier to sneak in. If you have a battery plate with a v-mount and d-tap cables powering everything good luck sneaking it in. That’s why the black magic pocket line and Panasonic gh line are so popular. Great image quality and a form factor that makes it super easy to sneak your camera into places that don’t let people with professional cameras in.

>>4398699
>>4398703
An external SSD on a camera the size of the s5, with a lens as large as typical l mount sloptics, is an absolute NO ENTRY if you want to sneak a camera in. This makes no sense.

>>4398695
It sounds like you’ve never done real video and have your priorities sideways. The best thing to do is let you fuck up and become financially frustrated.

Its also possible you are one of those paid panasonic shills we keep getting. Just based on the way you’re talking. Those are absolutely a real problem. Few other forums get notifications about panasonics fucking sales, just /p/. And the usual claims that panasonic is better than everything and theres a conspiracy to suppress it. Nah bro panasonic just isnt as good as canon. Thats it. The features it has over canon/sony are unimportant.

>>4398713
just let him do some actual work and realize he fucked up by prioritizing panaspecsheets over canon’s reality based featureset lol, they always come back to sanity eventually

>>4398557
So put it on my Nikon Z8 and it did short. Thanks a lot for not telling me you can't use cold shoes on a hot shoe mount you fucking nikkors, now I cant use the hot shoe at all.

>>4398725
>>4398745
is mounting something cold on a hot shoe even able to do that? or is he bullshitting?

>>4398747
Not really. He's probably a retard. The entire point of a cold shoe is that it lacks the electical contacts of a hot shoe, ∴ there should be no ability for damage to arise from normal use.
The only way I can imagine he's fucked it is if he bridged two contacts while it was powered with something metal, and I can't even imagine how you'd do that without doing it on purpose.

>>4398757
at least with my camera, there are connectors right at the deep end of the shoe as well as along the bottom. would connecting those cause it?

>>4398759
Canon's new proprietary (yuck) hotshoes have something like that. AFAIK they have protection against shit like that, but I've stuck cold-shoe items into it with no problem at all. Your system may or may not (because I don't know the actual layout / electical specs) have protection against that but I'd just read the manual and see if it mentions anything.

To be safe just use cold-shoe stuff that has an ABS plate instead of a metal one.

>>4398763
>ABS plate
haven't heard of that before, what's the difference from metal? plastic of some kind?

>>4398765
ABS is just the technical term for a kind of plastic. It's a specific kind that isn't "entirely" shit depending on the application (i.e. fine for camera parts, not ideal for motorcycle helmets), I just use it to refer to plastic that isn't that chinesium-grade shit. There's also engineering plastic (which IS what modern camera bodies use) but that's a tier above.

Almost all cold-shoe items I've bought are ABS and the odd metal one I had never caused any issues with the traditional 5-pin hotshoe of my then 70D.

>>4398713
>>4398715
>complain about shills
>are canon shills
epic

>>4398927
I would be a canon shill if the company wasn't so fucking frustrating. The abitrary limitations they impose on their cameras for the sake of segmentation, combined with their price-for-features, makes them no longer viable for the low budget solo shooter imo.
It fucking sucks because I think they make the best cameras.

lumix 24-105 f4 or 24-70 f2.8 in front of s5iix for handheld video (in low light also, no gimbal)? 24-105 has lens stabilization, 24-70 doesn't but has larger aperture. Both are supposedly parfocal

>>4398725
Nikonbros, what is our response? Can this shit really happen?

>>4398968
I use the 24-105 with my S1H and have no complaints, except that it's pretty massive
I've used it in low light plenty without problems, don't do much handheld though

NEW
>>4399102
>>4399102
>>4399102