>You can buy a complete setup, including camera, gimbal & Lidar autofocus for the cost of renting ONE lens for a typical production shoot (10 weeks).
>Get all the advantages of digital but none of the cons of film
>Automatically makes your image "cinematic"
>Perfect for indy scene
Examples:
?si=gKJTpp9UcNorxOgG
?si=uDK7G6OOqortKBdn
?si=SE3ND7sBRMJMBV_P
?si=7C7Hxtot8iOLpQhs
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
post a /misc/ related twitter screencap or frick off
Regarding focus.
DJI has recently launched a LiDAR autofocus that can be connected to a gimbal.
So you can have an entire single camera solution operated by a single crew-man.
That only works on a DJI gimbal using their focus follow rig on manual lens. Anyone shooting features on a gimbal for anything than an action shot is an idiot.
Also anamorphic =/= filmic. A lot of anamorphic lenses, especially cheap vintage, display distortion (barrel on wides) and old primes aren’t all made alike. The old lenses that are good, are massively expensive, because they’re known. The set up you have has so many optics stacked on each other it’s shit speed. Frankly all you have to do is just use a good full frame modern prime, block out your monitor and shoot as 2.39:1 (or whatever aspect ratio) and then convert in post.
If you really want to shoot anamorphic there’s a bunch of new companies producing decent cinema anamorphic primes… a full set under $2K
https://store.sirui.com/en-ca/products/sirui-venus-anamorphic-lens-kit
>focus
Dude, real movies are all focused by hand. Autofocus is used for sports.
>Autofocus is used for sports.
By still photographers, for sure. But live event sports camerawork (NBA, NFL, soccer etc.) it's all manual focus.
Most live sports is fast wide lenses, wide aperatures .. there very little depth of field or need to focus. You set a focus point / snap focus, and zoom out .. just follow the action wide
Running towards camera, far closeup of players on sidelines with telephoto lens, golf ball in the air, that's all auto focus. Movies and even most tv shows are all done on manual focus.
So, what's stopping the production houses from having say 5 of these and then pumping out 5-10$ movies non stop?
Because the camera package is rarely the most expensive thing on a movie. Almost always it is one of the cheapest things on the budget overal. Salaries, location permits, sets, production design, makeup, costumes, lighting etc. all cost far more. You can't just take a mirrorless body with an old lens and think it automatically makes a great movie. You need the crew, you need the actors, you need the locations, you need to plan everything, blah blah. The camera doesn't suddenly make everything happen, it is a really moronic idea.
>tfw a no budget indie shit
>with friends and family doing shit for free
>two Amazon lights total
>decide to rent a Red and three zeiss lenses anyways
I really wish this wasn’t a common occurrence.
New meme of this is people buying the FX3 because The Creator was shot on it and not realizing the movie still had a budget of 80 million dollars & it had world class talent working on it.
A set of professional feature cinema Zeiss of Arri primes retails for at least $150k. Lens kits aren’t cheap. Frick, nothing on a pro movie set is cheap. A grip cart on a professional / union set costs $5k. The cheapest thing on a real kino set are the background actors. Craft services costs more.
The rental prices aren't the cost of the lens kits when you buy them directly from Arri or Zeiss. No production is buying the lens sets, they are purchased by the rental houses that rent the lenses. Again if we are talking about a big commercial, movie or tv show, the camera budget is one of the smallest costs overall on the production. I work in the industry and in the camera department, I know.
Also lots of even high end productions are not shooting just on Arri, Zeiss or Cooke, there's plenty of cheaper rentals available as well. And glass is one of the things where the market has become really democratized in the last couple of years and there are bunch of great options that cost a lot less than 10 years ago. Linus Sandgren for example used Atlas Anarmorphics on Babylon.
Depends on 1) the budget 2) DOP. Yeah, absolutely a lot of projects will rent, and a lot of studios just have high end and vintage and varied kits in house (to rent, and Hollywood budget account). You’re still probably looking at $1k a day for a top set rental. I’ve also worked with DOPs that have their own lenses, like musicians have their favourite vintage guitar. Glass is a strange beast. Some directors and cinematographers just look at the tech specs (focal length, speed) and if it gets the job done with everything else like lighting etc; other are real gear autists. Like a lot of art, it isn’t the tool it is the artist that makes it good. Gondry and Soderbergh filmed good movies on iPhones. No one is arguing camera unit is the largest line item in a budget. But if a director and DOP says they need more (like Nolan did when he wanted Panavision to craft a new lenses for Oppenheimer and Dunkirk) I doubt any producer is going to say “no,” within reasonable budgetary reasons.
>like Nolan did when he wanted Panavision to craft a new lenses for Oppenheimer and Dunkirk
Why did Nolan need special lenses for those movies?
Autism
https://ymcinema.com/2023/07/25/the-lenses-behind-oppenheimer-modified-panavision-and-an-imax-snorkel-lens/
>You’re still probably looking at $1k a day for a top set rental.
Often more, again it is not cheap by "normie" standards but even on a mid budget movie that is drop in a bucket when looking at the whole budget and where vast majority of the money is going. DP's especially are obsessive about glass because it is one of the core things that can affect the look and feel of the visual language they want for the film. On high end stuff like Oppenheimer it is very typical that custom lenses get made & used and Dan Sasaki of Panavision for example modifies lenses specifically for high budget movies. Sometimes it is because of technical reasons, sometimes because of creative reasons, often both.
Nah.
The only good use of filming on an iPhone is if the scene is supposed to be a phone recording within the film.
Hideaki Anno understood this with how some shots in Shin Godzilla, Shin Ultraman, and Shin Kamen Rider were shot on iPhones. Because they were phone videos taken by civilians in the film.
Yeah.
In the Philippines, $800,000 is already a huge budget.
Most films here are like $5,000 or even less.
And sometimes, they can look better than most CGI overload films from Hollywood. If the films have zero CGI.
But the CGI effects do look like PS1 graphics or just straight-up use AI.
these shots look horrible
what are you, the shot caller?
ohh, shots fired
you miss 100% of the shots you don't take
Yet somehow they still look better than the "nuclear" explosion scene in Oppenheimer.
>loser opinion
>in the designated loser artist thread
>on le Cinemaphile, the home field of losers
it’s like pottery
Nolan is not going to have sex with you. Stop simping for him.
Wasn't the point of anamorphic lenses to squeeze more image onto a 35mm or 70mm film frame, then unsqueeze it when projecting? With digital, I don't know if the same limitation exists with the CCD technology
I think for digital filmmaking it's about evoking a dramatic tone, similar to how stages are lit to get you in the "theater" frame of mind. Storytelling is hypnosis at its base and the act of settling into the story is precipitated by the dimming of stage lights, the fade and music of title screens, etc. It's why moving pictures/books are such effective propaganda because to experience them at all is to be brought into a trance state.
There's different squeeze factors for anarmorphic in digital cinematography especially. Depending on your camera and sensor you are most likely going to crop some of the image because of the anamorphic and squeeze factor. Cameras that can shoot open gate will give you more real estate with anamorphic.
Most digital films are shot with flat lenses, and in anywhere from 4:3 to 1.90:1.
They usually just crop to 2.39:1 in post.
looks warped as frick. who would want to watch 1½ hour of that. unless i guess it's some epic eXXXtreme sports skating video. i guess fish eye shit works in those
>How come low budget movies aren't using vintage anamorphic lenses?
Every budget level production is using all kinds of old vintage lenses, including anamorphic lenses. This has been going on for about 10-15 years now. You have not wandered into some new secret, thing, it is done all the fricking time. Even most of the high end movies often use very old lenses, in terms of anamorphic, very often one of the Pansonic anarmophic lens series.
only the third one looks good
Lights and sound, baby. That's what will make your indie shit stand out from the rest.
That looks... Not that great? You can get similar footage using a cellphone (much more convenient and hoopable) that you already own. What makes or breaks a shot nowadays is lighting and set design more than anything.
>cinematic
Uh oh, looks like someone hasn’t watch their Sam Hyde stream clips
You morons have been saying this for like 15 years with Blackmagic cameras and such and still haven't produced a single film
Go to Tubi. There's literally thousands of films with sub $10,000 budgets. You need marketing for people to watch your film and for critics to jump on the bandwagon and give it good reviews. I'm pretty sure there's people on this board who have made a movie that at least saw a debut on Tubi.
Sounds like the free markets has chosen the good movies and discarded the bad movies
I wonder how many of those got enough to technically be “hits” and make a profit. Surely there’s some that are either decent or more likely, had a click baity, eye catching thumbnail and title.
Depends on what you mean, profit for who? For the filmmakers, I'll guess they make the movie for $10k, sell it to Tubi for $20k. For Tubi, they probably write it off as an expense, more content means more ad revenue, some accounting gets done, they file for taxes, and down the line if your movie got enough hits, they'll probably buy another one off you.
Tubi and other free streamers are basically a fancy YouTube. You get no money upfront if they choose to put your movie on Tubi splits the money made from ads with you. So you get paid according to how many people watch your movie. I knew a guy who said he made more than $75k between all the streamers his movie was on. The movie had a budget of $30k and his main marketing was social media and whoring himself out to every horror website and podcast imaginable. Though I think he was inflating his numbers, I think he still made enough to cover the costs and have enough money to focus on making movies and.m not rely on a wagie job to survive. The most low budget movie I've seen on Tubi had a budget of $3000.
>You get no money upfront if they choose to put your movie on Tubi splits the money made from ads with you
Wow what a shit deal, essentially a backend deal
When you make a movie for $10k, just getting your name on IMDB and getting some money back is all you want. There's not that many studios and distributors rushing to buy $10k movies. And you start getting paid with the first viewer and it's a non-exclusive contract. These ad supported streamers have been a blessing for ultra low budget movies that would have never gotten any viewers and would have been dumped on YouTube at best. For people that look, you can find a few gems in the movie sections of these streamers.
low budget movies are using iphones
Post this thread on Cinemaphile
frick off, this is the best thread on Cinemaphile right now and the one most related to movies