Видео

Цели обмануть и не было вовсе 😁

Спасибо!

It's edited on 4k timeline and rendered in 4k to avoid YT compression , but I didn't use any superscale in Resolve

Thanks! It's Atomos Shinobi 5

After all these years I still use my bmpcc 4k and it still amuses me with the images it spits out

Ha-ha, you're welcome!

Yeah, LT is the lowest I would go personally.

On RAW, no difference. But on pro-res, it will dictate which color profile gets saved to the video. Film saves the log profile for post-production grading. Looks grey and bland but you can grade however you want. Video saves the Rec709, which is more usable without editing (has decent contrast and saturation), but has less room to play and tweak.

Yes, to simplify what @axelfoley133 said - Film is a Log profile, flat and desaturated giving you the most range and flexibility in post. Video is graded, meant for delivery straight out of camera or with as little tweaking as possible. In RAW you have no other options, but to shoot with Film profile. In ProRes you can choose.

Thanks :3

It's rated for for larger than that, about 2/3".

Thanks! But this footage was stabilized in post. Straight from the scanner it had a lot of up and down movement, but very little from side to side. I'm yet not sure was it a problem with camera, with scanning process or with film stock itself

Hi , I Like it so much, how do you stabilized ? thanks@@iamlookingatyouthroughtheglass

Hi! With Davinci Resolve's built-in stabilizer

Thanks! Yeah, it's quite challenging to focus at f1.5 in the shade with tiny viewfinder. It looked sharper in person

@@iamlookingatyouthroughtheglass Don't ask me how many times I messed up focus, even though it looked pin sharp in the view finder and everything (ground glass, back focus) was correctly aligned. At f/1.5 it must have looked very dark in the viewfinder. In a feature film with some kind of budget you have time to tape-measure focus in smaller spaces. No such luck with run and gun documentary style filming. Oh - and now with great 4K scans you can clearly see how many times focus is off even in top notch feature films. It's mostly close-ups with very shallow DoF where the actor didn't hit the mark correctly and for example the ears are in focus, but not the eyes, or worse: a foreground or background object is in focus. I guess sometimes the nervous director made a last minute change on the fly and the camera operator and focus puller were unable to keep track.

Hi! Thanks you for such kind words. It was processed as Reversal, so I have a reel of positive images. Developing and scanning was done by Mutascan in Finland

Very likely since you don't have in-camera light metering and no monitor to show the final result. You can use a digital camera to measure reflected light or a classic incidental light meter for incoming light (so a white wall for example stays white and will not turn gray). 0:24 - these kind of shots require the most work. You have a darker interior and a very bright exterior. If you measure for the interior (where your attention is), the exterior will blow completely, so you'll have to underexpose a bit.

@@truefilm6991 Thanks yeah that balance will definitely come after experimenting. I would want to expose for the highlights if they're important, or otherwise allow them to blow out that i can "fix" with diffusion filter, haze, smoke or light curtains, but indoors i would guess the lighting will help. Thank you 🙏🏼🙏🏼

@@DethronerX exactly. It's basically: with film you are fully aware of the lighting and the latitude of your film, including grain structure and overall texture - with digital you rely a lot on software. Lenses and framing are the same of course, except perhaps that you can have a lot of grids and lines overlaid in a digital camera viewfinder/monitor. I doubt that this leads to much better results. The great masters came up with absolutely pristine camera work using old rack-over Mitchell cameras in the 1930s. And yeah, it must hurt going back to digital. Film is simply beautiful.

Well, that's definitely an option. The amount of details that you can pull from shadows on reversal film is surprising. But I mostly exposed for middle-gray and even for shadows in the couple of shots.

Hi! Unfortunately not. Even if you manage to do some sort of DIY adapter, the lens will be too far from the sensor (because of the mirror between them). So it only will work as a macro lens, focusing on objects maximum couple of centimeters away. But it is possible to adapt this lens to EOS M and R series cameras

@@iamlookingatyouthroughtheglass thanks for your answer, I guessed about this, but hopped there is a way 😂

Hi! Basically there are two types of adapters to put EF glass on MFT cameras. One has a lens and usually called "speedbooster", because it makes image one stop brighter and also gives you wider field of view (for example one from Metabones - www.metabones.com/products/details/mb_spef-m43-bm1). And the second type is just an adapter, so basically a barrel with contact points (like this one - www.metabones.com/products/details/mb_ef-m43-bt2). It has no glass in its construction, hence I called it "glassless".

​@@iamlookingatyouthroughtheglasshello, i liked your answer but never took the Time to reply and thank you for the detailed answer. ❤❤❤. Cheers

Sure. I'll probably will make a video about my process, but feel free to ask questions

@@iamlookingatyouthroughtheglass I need to know if my lens is affecting my ability to grade it correctly. I bought a used one. I’m willing to pay a small fee. Can I email you the clip and see how the colors turn out for you? I need to know where I’m going wrong bc I have a big shoot to edit thanks in advance

@@dangershotz of course, send me files to iamlookingatyouthroughtheglass@gmail.com with all the info about the lens and camera model/settings

No, just a regular adapter

Thanks!

Thanks and welcome!

Que bom que você gostou! Bem-vindo!