u/BearSEO

I am extremely new to this , infact I am just in the process of buying my first camera. I wanna create videos with a certain look. I have had some looks in my mind that are different to the usual ones. However I wanna create these vlogs fast and I can't afford a stylist for every video.

So this has been my thought process so far

1. Buy a camera thats light and has an inbuilt lut system(I am looking at the Lumix S9)
2. Limit my lens choices to a maximum of two or one if possible
3. Test the look in camera with the luts. Find out how to get the look in camera as much as possible using the realtime LUT feature
4. After the clips have been shot, I can grade it easily myself as I had already exposed the footage for the LUT .

This workflow will help me to push out more videos in the look I want and i will need a colorist only at the starting when building the look.

How reasonable is this plan?

I am extremely new to this , infact I am just in the process of buying my first camera. I wanna create videos with a certain look. I have had some looks in my mind that are different to the usual ones. However I wanna create these vlogs fast and I can't afford a stylist for every video.

So this has been my thought process so far

1. Buy a camera thats light and has an inbuilt lut system(I am looking at the Lumix S9)
2. Limit my lens choices to a maximum of two or one if possible
3. Test the look in camera with the luts. Find out how to get the look in camera as much as possible using the realtime LUT feature
4. After the clips have been shot, I can grade it easily myself as I had already exposed the footage for the LUT .

This workflow will help me to push out more videos in the look I want and i will need a colorist only at the starting when building the look.

How reasonable is this plan?

Is it newTraining routine? Genetics? Or youth? What's he doing different to get such outstanding difference at his size? I can't compute how someone so small can do what he does . He's not overweight, he's not freakishly tall, whats he doing differently?

Is it new batch of stacks? Training routine? Genetics? Or youth? What's he doing different to get such outstanding difference at his size? I can't compute how someone so small can do what he does . He's not overweight, he's not freakishly tall, whats he doing differently?

I feel like it's an whole other thing from movie making. I have almost no control over what I would see, how I would see . It's mostly reactive. How can I under these circumstances be a better cinematographer?

It's quirky af, but it still must be the only camera offerning EL zone monitoring and direct ssd recording and outstanding image quality in such a small package

Okey I know it's an unpopular opinion and I was also with you guys on this for a while.

I had only seen one person ever say online when the s1ii came out , that they preferred the s1ii image over the s1rii . He had awesome videos with the camera but I still thought he was loony.

Then a colorblind filmmaker friend of me also mentioned the same to me. He said that s1ii and zr almost rendered the same ; that the way the leaves, the shapes , hair and how the image was actually rendered devoid of color was almost the same with the s1ii being a bit more sharper and contrasty because of the increased dynamic range and the Nikon being slightly soft because of the OLPF

And that kinda blew me off, since then whenever I compare both cameras , I can almost always he's right everytime and...I kinda prefer the s1ii s rendering over the Nikon cus I kinda hate the soft look nowadays.

Of course this is after adjusting the default colors

So far we have not even heard of any rumors from Lumix even if a camera is developing. Moreover, there were some rumors that there won't be an s1hii when the release of s1ii happened by panny engineers in an interview. I think it was with cined but don't quote me on it.

If there's any one here with the lumix team atleast tell us if something like s1hii is coming

Just wandering how your expertise with grading have affected your povs regarding a camera that you would use personally? Would you prioritize one with raw? Or would you prioritize something else for more convenience?

Been using the Nikon Zr for a month now, and i feel kind of .....underwhelmed and disappointed to be honest. I expected it to be so much better , but then the reality of it kinda cemented after each day

1. Can't use the R3d raw all that much and beyond the out of box colors, I really need to know grading to maximise the footage. My colorist told me it felt overkill most of the time and he doesn't need to constrain his storage unless it was neccessary
2. The compressed codecs are downright ass. There's no way to sugarcoat it. It just feels so bad at times. And the noise has more than one occasion made footage unusable
3. The dynamic range is so constraining. I had to shoot a low light footage and it was nail biting to make the footage usable
4. no good exposure tools, no good ibis, which kind of makes me think twice even picking it up for personal use

The thing is the only good thing about the zr is the image quality. But that's it about the camera.

I have been borrowing a friends lumix for the last week and the only problem it has is the color science straight out of camera.(which he fixes with a realtime lut ) Everything else is just so fucking perfect. I wish I hadn't listened to the youtubers, Or maybe should have listened carefully as the only thing those people had to rave was the image quality.

But ykw? Its not all that greater than my sigma fp which can record directly to ssd.

Rant over. Just blowing steam before selling this thing. Peace out.

Moneyball(2011) is one of the best and beautiful films I have ever watched. But what perplexes and frustrates me is that I can't seem to articulate why, I like it so much .

In case of my other favorites like birdman or master or phantom thread, I can almost always pick something that makes it special like the composition or the vibrancy of the color etc, but moneyball isn't like that.

It doesn't have any grandiose shots that makes you awe . It just has this sublime, beauty that makes us stick so much and just wants you to see more. I can't understand why, though. Is it the grade? The light? I don't seem to be able to understand why it's so good. Can anyone help me understand this better?

I have gone through the previous posts the sub has on this, but they were mostly made when the cameras only came out so there weren't lot of opinions from people who used both cameras.

Since its been about a year, I think people here could provide a more nuanced perspective on this

Which lenses have made you want to buy them? and why do you buy and still keep them? What makes it good for you? What are your personal criterias for a good lens?

Been hearing a ton about lenses with 3d pop , not having 3d pop, etc and I can't see it 99 percent of the time. There's only been in one instance that I have felt the difference clearly....

Is it only me that have a hard time distinguishing this?
Does 3d pop affect your lens choices?Why?

My friend said that "using a 50mm 1.5× anamorphic lens on an S35 sensor is the same as using a 33mm spherical lens on a full-frame camera and just cropping/exporting to the same anamorphic aspect ratio."

Ignoring anamorphic-specific characteristics like flares and oval bokeh, is this actually true in terms of field of view and depth of field?

My understanding is that a 50mm 1.5× anamorphic on S35 gives roughly the horizontal FOV of a 33mm lens, but I'm not sure whether the DOF equivalence also holds. Am I missing something?

Been seeing loads of posts saying 2022 was the best or something. I usually don't chip into these posts but I have to in those. Unless you were a fetus in 2010 you would have felt the craze. No other world cup song has had the craze 2010 world cup had . It's nowhere near close. If you are talking about finals though it might be there being an end of the era, but festivities and buzz??? Naah 2010 is always gonna beat 2022 on that. Sorry if you weren't there for it

At advanced levels , how do you guys accurately measure if something worked and produced you results ? It might not be apparent like newbies or intermediates, so how do you measure it accurately to see if something works or not?

If not failure, how do you guage your intensity?

I was reading Ben Pollack, and he says in one of his articles that bodybuilding is largely a product of what he describes as "effort" which is why all kinds of programs from high volume to mentzer style low volume all produce hypertrophy, while this doesn't seem to be the case with powerlifting where it's almost always guaranteed that more volume would make you lift more than a person who does less volume.

If this is the case,we should be seeing a great number of people running low volume programs and making gains on par with the high volume people. But I don't seem to find the case. Almost everyone is doing more volume to grow.

I am here, to basically find if there's evidence for my conjecture is wrong. Has anyone here exclusively trained with low volume and made gains? If so do you have something to show us? What your journey was like ?

Hello everyone, I know questions like this have been beaten to death here a thousand times, but I am here to ask your help as this is one of the most important trips of a lifetime for me.

I intend to travel most of next year between , Nepal , Italy and Brazil..mostly solo and hiking around in the nature. I plan to hike from kathmandu to annapurna and maybe hike through the italian dolomites too, based on how things go in nepal. I want to document most of what I can from this journey as I might never be free like this again in my life.

I have spent the last few months researching about cameras and I have narrowed it down into 3 choices so far in terms of system. I plan to buy a mirrorless hybrid camera as I want to take both photos and videos, with a slight more favorism towards video. Here are my final picks:

1. Nikon: The ZR, Z8 and Z6iii where considered. Nikon is alright, but I am kinda skittish about the ibis performance and the compressed codecs issues and also not having true 24p . I really would have loved to shoot raw, but I don't know how practical it would be on such a long trip. Maybe the less storage space might make me too careful? No idea

2. Lumix and Leica: I am very impressed by both Lumix s1rii and s1ii but I have always imagined them having less image quality than Nikon . But i have heard they have one of the best compressed codecs in mirrorless cameras. The IBIS heavily favors lumix though, but image quality is a real stickler. Also I am not sure how they would perform in brazil .

If it weren't for the fact that I wasn't sure about the video specs of Leica, I would have definitely gone for it despite the exorbitant price. It seems to have the best build quality and ux. and the best image quality bar none when it comes to photos. The video performance however i have seen are poor

I didn't choose canon because I just don't like canon for some reason and I don't want to use something i feel so poor about. Sony I felt like offers the least for the money so I stopped looking into it. Leica imho even though luxury felt offered more than sony for me.

so help me, what should i pick?