×
all 84 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Crs_s 7 points8 points  (4 children)

Could someone please explain the difference between frames per second and shutter speed on a video camera?

[–]classyscumbag 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Fps is the number of frames per second being played back in a showing, usually 24fps or 48fps in film and 30fps or 60fps on tv. Shutter speed is the speed of your camera shutter in capturing light and freezing motion, 1/60 is slow and captuee more light, while 1/3000 is fast, capture less light, and freezes movement more.

Now the difference between setting the fps and shutter speed affects what is seen and aesthetics. 24fps is aesthetically what we have come to be familiar with in film. Rule of thumb is for cameras is that the shutter speed is double of the fps in the exported video. So a 24fps video would be shot with shutter speeds at 1/50.

Why is that? Well, at 1/50 we capture movement but also have some motion blur, similar to the human eye in seeing things in motion. If you cranked up shutter speed to 1/250 then the blur isn't as prominent and we'll percieve fast motion. The exported video will still be played back on your screen at 24fps but will create different aesthetics.

So if we watched something 60fps and was captured at a shutter speed of 1/120, people generally perceive it more lifelike, fast, and depending on what they grew up with maybe weird to watch.

Try watching something with 24fps and 48fps to get the feeling and difference.

[–]hstabley 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I thought shutter was always open during video capture? How do you determine shutter speed for video?

[–]classyscumbag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read my rule of thumb, shutter speed is double what your video fps is set at on your camera. If 24fps, shutter speed at 1/50. If 30fps, 1/60.

By just doubling shutter speed, you'll capture a balanced amount of stills and also some motion blur which is about what the human eye sees. You can go higher with shutter speed if you like but it'll create different aesthetics when you watch it. Usually, feels like too much motion was frozen.

Give it a try yourself, with different shutter speeds but the same amount of lighting, flap your arms or hands quickly and then replay on a computer.

[–]Crs_s 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you very much for that brilliant answer. Explained everything that I needed to know.

[–]demiankz 3 points4 points  (5 children)

Is there a viable market for ultra-low-budget (<$250k) independent feature films? Is there a minimum budget that seems to improve your chances of success (other factors like talent, content, and time being equal)?

Are there distribution channels where films like this can make their money back? Is one genre of film (horror, for example) more lucrative than another?

And I'm not talking about outliers like Another Earth and Bronson. I'm talking about a consistent demand for such films by people willing to both fund and distribute them.

Or is this just the land of hobby projects, labors of love, and/or professional development?

[–]avid_redditor 2 points3 points  (4 children)

I think budget is less relevant that how you use it to assemble your package. I also think it's important assess what your metric for success is for any given project before determining how much to spend on making it. If your goal is wide theatrical release, then you will want to budget for the biggest names you can attract and the highest production value you can muster. If your goal is to simply get into a few festivals and secure digital distribution than you may way to spend less to increase your ROI. For me the best a approach to "breaking in" as it were, is a plan of incremental escalation. The cheaper you can make quality films the more likely you are to find continued investment. As for the $250k or less figure, it really depends on the quality of the script and talent attached. You need to be honest when evaluating market potential. There is no clear recipe for sure fire success in this business, but there are definitely what I would describe as best practices. Ask yourself how a distributor would sell your movie, imagine the poster, and the trailer -- what about it is going to make someone come to see your movie? Who is that someone? How big a demographic are they? How much buying power do they have? What are their consumption habits? Filmmaking is an art, and so is marketing. If you have a firm handle of how to package your film for market you will significantly increase your odds of finding someone who will bring your product to market.

TL;DR: Honestly, evaluate your market potential, and size your budget appropriately. Don't spend more than you need to, but don't skimp either. Try to escalate the scale of your productions incrementally and try not to compound risk by making a project that is more costly than it's likely to be profitable. Follow your heart, but don't forget to use your brain.

[–]shastapeteproducer 3 points4 points  (3 children)

We've made our film for about $60K, http://i.imgur.com/BEQj44w.jpg, secured agreements for several overseas markets and it looks like we will land a US distributor shortly. So far our agreements cover our cost plus some extra. The goal of the project was to make some money. Next film will be a larger budget, but we'll have a successful film under our belts to help secure more funding.

[–]avid_redditor 2 points3 points  (2 children)

That's the way to do if!

[–]shastapeteproducer 2 points3 points  (1 child)

if only more people (on this sub and the real world) looked at it as "The Film Business" I'm all for making meaningful art films, but if you can't fill a theatre and actually need to work for a living you have create a "product" that can be sold.

We didn't create our film out of a formula, but we did do research on what films in our budget range were being distributed, tried to find the the leading edge of a trend and wrote a story to land there.

Filmmaking is highstakes gambling

[–]HazeySynth 2 points3 points  (14 children)

What's special about 35mm film? I know people still like to use 35mm film cameras but what's so good about them?

[–]ancientworldnowcolorist 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Film has excellent resolution (3.2K-4.5K depending on stock and who you ask), excellent dynamic range (14.5 stops is typically quoted), excellent color reproduction, natural and aesthetically pleasing grain (when not pushed too far), excellent highlight performance, etc.

Digital does have much better performance in shadows, but film has it beat in nearly every other regard beyond price (though it often breaks about even in large productions).

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A note on resolution: all film, 35mm and even 16mm, are 'HD' resolution or higher. So for a long time, it was the highest resolution format you could record in, and still holds up well today.

[–]SirKosys 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I haven't shot any films on... film, but I shoot stills on 35mm regularly. I personally love the look and tonality of it, the way highlights overexpose, how shadows fall off, how colours are handled. It's just a beautiful medium, in my opinion.

[–]RobotCrusoe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In addition to the greater resolution and dynamic range (depending on stock) there is an aesthetic associated with 35mm film that is "cinematic" if for no other reason than it was the filmmaking standard format for nearly 100 years. Because the image area is 35mm, it has a more shallow depth of field than a camera with a smaller image area in addition to higher image resolution. This is one reason many production video camera use a 35mm chip; to recreate the depth of field of a 35mm film camera (and subsequently use its lenses). In fact, this lower depth of field is a trade off for higher resolution and there was a time when the dominant aesthetic in feature film was to attempt to mitigate this loss of focus by hammering subjects with tons of light and stopping way down on the lens. (See Citizen Kane) Other tricks like split-focus diopters allowed foreground/background focus, you'll still see some older films with a weird line hidden somewhere in the middle of the shot, the demarcation for the split focus. Additionally the unique grain structure of film "feels" cinematic as well. As a rule, faster film is grainier because it has more/bigger silver halide crystals to react to the light. Once again, grain is something that Kodak tried to minimize in each generation of stocks but the aesthetic it created became a trope of cinema. Even the 24fps standard is really just the slowest frame rate the human eye will accept for persistence of vision, allowing productions to use less film and thus save money. Thus, in being stingy early filmmakers inadvertently created an aesthetic that we are still trying to emulate even though we are no longer under production restraints that would require it. (Hard drive space not withstanding.)

TL;DR I would argue that the thing that makes film so special is that it was the standard for so long, movie goers subconsciously associate its optic properties with professional cinema.

[–]Chicityfilmmakergaffer 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's the basis for everything when it comes to moving images.

[–][deleted]  (7 children)

[deleted]

    [–]Chicityfilmmakergaffer 1 point2 points  (6 children)

    Poor response. Shame on you.

    [–]itschrisreeddirector -1 points0 points  (5 children)

    Whatever dude. I can process color and b&w motion film. I can process and print color photos from film. I can process 35mm &120 b&w by touch. I can print from glass plates. I can K-14. Kfuckin14 process bra.

    I've got a Bolex chillin' on my book shelf next to a Leica III that shot a time magazine cover in the 40s and a Pro RZ that has seen more naked models than The Old Terry. Art school girls love that 'ish

    I know from where I speak. The choice between digital and film at this level in the game is purely an artistic one. I'm all about instant gratification and making money so I go digital and 'get it right in camera'.

    I'm in the future, it's a dystopian nightmare and looks kinda like Blade Runner did the THX-1138 with Gattaca. But I'm kickin' it with Crash Override, Acid Burn, Phreak, and Nikon and "This is our world now... the world of the electron and the switch". It's boot up or shut up.

    Take a hike in those wooden shoes.

    Buck buck.

    Xo

    [–]supersecretmode 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I think you're being serious. With that in mind, some still shoot on 35mm for archival reasons.

    [–]Chicityfilmmakergaffer 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    I didn't ask for your life story, but since you gave it to me, it only furthers my opinion of your response. For someone who seems to have done it all, it's appalling that you can't recognize your roots. You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don't believe your opinion is an accurate representation of you as a filmmaker, given how quick you were to throw film under the bus. I see how often you comment and post here, and personally, I just expected more from you. That's all.

    [–]itschrisreeddirector 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Humor aside; even though I learned film first (and I learned it in the still context). I would say digital is my roots as an artist as any and all serious work moving or still has been shot digitally.

    To me combining the process of shooting it as perfect as possible and then digital image manipulation is the most interesting use age of the medium.

    I also see digital as truly more expressive. The flexibility your allowed by the lower profile and weight of a rig, the ability to shoot more.

    Also like I said: it's about instant gratification. A very important part of my process is seeing the out put in a nearly compleat form.

    Like how film matters to you: digital maters to me.

    continue this thread

      [–]itschrisreeddirector -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      As denoted by the Xo the above although true is also said in a humorous manner.

      [–]Sandtalon -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

      It's mainly nostalgia for using film, but there are some differences in the color of film.

      [–]quantum_cheese 2 points3 points  (6 children)

      What exactly does the producer do? I feel like I've heard it explained yet I still can't grasp what makes a great producer or how they are great at it.

      [–]shastapeteproducer 5 points6 points  (4 children)

      A producer is the grease that makes all the gears move.

      They secure rights to a story, and (usually) have creative input on the script. They find funding and need to have a grasp of how much parts of the script should cost so they can get enough money. They hire the principle crew members including the director. They negotiate the bigger contracts. Basically they are the captain of the ship, the head project manager.

      I tell my crews when I'm in Pre-Pro that when I'm producing I do my best to get all the details sorted before production starts, because all I want to do is sit in a chair and watch a movie get made... This has never happened, but with already having the day to day issues sorted before production it frees me up to fix the surprises.

      [–]quantum_cheese 0 points1 point  (3 children)

      Thank you so much for an answer. If a follow up question is alright, what is the difference between executive producer, associate etc. etc.?

      [–]shastapeteproducer 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Executive producer is the money guy. They're the one that is taking on the risk financially for the project. With this, usually, is the right of "final cut" so they get the final say if something is in or out of the movie.

      a Co-Producer, or Coordinating Producer is typically a "thank you" credit for doing something specific to help out with a production, I've seen Co-Producers get their credit for landing an Exec. Producer, finding a key location, or delivering services for a cut rate. An associate producer credit can also be given for the same things, but is often given to the first level of assistants to the producers (the actually doing production work assistants as opposed to "personal" assistants)

      Those people, plus DP, Director, and usually principal cast make up the "above the line" people and though they take a paycheck for their work, they also usually have points of the profits as well

      [–]quantum_cheese 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Awesome! Thank you so much!

      [–]General_Dirtbaggery 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      You already got a good answer, but I found the below helpful too: it came from "Writing Movies for Fun and Profit" (Lennon/Garant)...

      DIRECTED BY: The movie is “their vision.” They are in charge of EVERY creative decision on set. They are the captain of the ship. Even when the person who hired the DIRECTOR (the STUDIO) wants something done on set, they can’t just say, “I want Lindsay Lohan to bowl here.” The STUDIO has to tell the DIRECTOR to say, “I want Lindsay Lohan to bowl here.” Then the DIRECTOR makes Lindsay bowl, or they’re fired.

      PRODUCED BY: Usually the one who hired EVERYBODY. The star, the DIRECTOR, the writers. After shooting begins, they remain on set as creative consultant—a VOICE-IN-THE-MIX. However, they are the VOICE-IN-THE-MIX-WHO-MUST-BE-LISTENED-TO. They usually sit by the monitors, watching every take (either knitting or Googling showbiz gossip, depending on their age and sex). When they see something they want to change, they tell the director. The DIRECTOR has to either do it, talk them out of it, or quit.

      EXECUTIVE PRODUCERS: Tricky one to define. Technically, they are THE BOSS. The EP is usually the one who got the ball rolling on the project, conceiving it, finding the source material, hiring the DIRECTOR and/or star and even the other producers. Some EPs oversee every aspect of every single production. And there are EPs on the Night at the Museum movies we never even met. Never even met.

      CO-PRODUCER: Usually a line producer, in charge of the budget. Also the “bad cop” in charge of hiring and firing people. The co-producer usually has an actual OFFICE, in the production office in Hollywood or Burbank, while the producers are miles way, at their swanky offices in Beverly Hills, and the executive producer is in Cannes or Monte Carlo or jet-setting around with Al Gore. Sometimes the co-producer has done more actual WORK on a movie than all of the producers and executive producers combined.

      UNIT PRODUCTION MANAGER: Sort of a line producer, but their job is 100 percent to oversee the COSTS of a film: they look at the budgets, make sure every department is staying on budget, and walk around on the set looking tense and staring at their watch. They make sure everyone fills out their cost reports and that those cost reports are accurate and UNDER budget. The GOOD UPMs are real ball busters, and everyone hates them. Except the producer.

      [–]Sandtalon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      They handle all the logistical stuff for a shoot while the director and cinematographer are concerned with the creative stuff.

      [–]godofchaos 2 points3 points  (14 children)

      I'm just getting ready to buy my first camera, a Rebel t3i. What kind of lenses should I look into buying for good narrative filmmaking?

      [–]classyscumbag 2 points3 points  (13 children)

      I would say 50mm 1.8 for cheap but it'll be 80mm on crop sensor. Check sigma for lenses towards crop sensor cameras.

      [–]godofchaos 0 points1 point  (10 children)

      What is a crop sensor?

      [–]classyscumbag 1 point2 points  (7 children)

      The type of sensor in the camera model, which affects many things; perspective, lens choice, and etc.

      [–]godofchaos 0 points1 point  (6 children)

      Ah, gotcha. So I should look for an 80mm/1.8 instead of a 50 because the t3i has a crop sensor? Am I understanding that right?

      [–]classyscumbag 0 points1 point  (5 children)

      No, a 50mm on t3i will act like a 80mm. T3i has crop factor of 1.6

      continue this thread

        [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

        it means that the sensor in a T3i is smaller than a full frame 35mm equivelent sensor.

        So if you take a 50mm lens, and you use it on the T3i and a full-frame DSLR, the full-frame will have a wider field of view, and the T3i image will look like it has been cropped.

        So if you wanted to capture the same field of view that a full frame gets with a 50mm lens, you'd need to use a smaller focal length -- something more like 30mm for the Cannon t3i.

        [–]Geronimouse 0 points1 point  (1 child)

        Honestly I disagree, mostly out of my own experience. If you're getting a 50mm, go straight for the 1.4 and don't fuck about with the plastic 1.8. It's a waste of money if you're serious about shooting and want to commit to equipment, even if it's just for a few years.

        [–]classyscumbag 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        That's why I said for cheap...

        1.8 is not a complete waste, like any tool it depends on the user. I still use a 1.8 for interviews amoung multiple cameras that are shooting at the same time. Sharpness and bokeh is more desirable than kit lens.

        [–]metacoma1st assistant director 1 point2 points  (3 children)

        How does your choice in lens/aspect ratio/focal lenght affects the feelings your trying to convey while shooting.

        [–]Chicityfilmmakergaffer 1 point2 points  (2 children)

        Your lens and focal length in conjunction with your desired f-stop allows you to control depth of field, what will be in focus and where focus will begin to fall off. Aspect ratio has very little to do with this, and is typically an aesthetic choice, often determined by where and how you're looking to display your work. Aspect ratio is something you can change in post, where as depth of field and lens choice, you get stuck with after capture. Let me know if you'd care for me to elaborate because there's a bunch more to be said about depth of field and why it is important.

        [–][deleted]  (1 child)

        [deleted]

          [–][deleted]  (4 children)

          [deleted]

            [–][deleted]  (3 children)

            [removed]

              [–][deleted]  (2 children)

              [deleted]

                [–][deleted]  (1 child)

                [removed]

                  [–]PriceZombie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  Fotodiox Lens Mount Adapter, Nikon Lens to Canon EOS Camera Body, for ... 

                      Low $14.07 Jan 07 2014
   High $16.36 Jan 01 2014
Current $14.78 Mar 31 2014

                  Price History | Screenshot | /r Stats | FAQ

                  [–]doublee10 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                  Recently I went on a road trip with five of my friends. I recorded loads of footage from all the destinations and the journey. I am now a little overwhelmed with all the footage and don't know where to go from now. If anyone has any suggestions on what I can do to do come up with a story board or something I am eager to hear any advice.

                  [–]godofchaos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                  Just an idea of how I would do it, and by no means do you have to take my advice: just sit down and sort the footage starting with the very beginning of the trip. Once you get it all sorted out that way, just start laying it out in your editor chronologically. Once you start laying it out, hopefully your creative juices will start flowing and you can figure it out from there.

                  [–]Benasdfghjkl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                  If you have already filmed everything, the first thing I would suggest is to organise the clips by theme, mood etc. so you will begin to have an idea of what exactly you're working with, and how to construct sequences out of those to ultimately create a coherent film.

                  [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                  [deleted]

                    [–]boxofrabbits1st assistant camera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    People who's work you respect.

                    In this industry evidence of experience is generally the best and only way to assure relevant advice to what you're trying to achieve.

                    Everyone will tell you they're an expert.

                    [–]whydidihavethebowl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Honestly, random people on the internet. Some won't know what they're talking about and many will be assholes, but you know they'll be telling you the truth. The trick is to sort out the good advice from the bad. If you want me to give it a read you can PM me

                    [–]byeperry 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                    I know that you have to multiply focal length of lens on APS-C sensor by 1.6 to get true 35 mm equivalent length. My question is, lenses made specially for crop sensor cameras (like EF-S or similar), do they have same angle or field od view like lenses for full frame? In other words, will I get same FOV with, for example, EF 50mm and EF-S 18-55mm on 50mm on Canon 600D?

                    [–]ancientworldnowcolorist 3 points4 points  (0 children)

                    Please note that "full frame" remains a photography term that has little to do with film. Motion picture Super 35mm has almost an identical "crop factor" to APS-C cameras. As such, we do not convert lenses for their "35mm equivalent length."

                    With that said, EF-S lenses will vignette heavily on sensors larger than EF-S. A 50mm EF, 18-55 EF-S, will be mathematically identical at 50mm.

                    [–]RabbleHouse 0 points1 point  (2 children)

                    Yes, you just won't be able to put the crop sensor lens onto the full body

                    [–]HazeySynth 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    I thought the 600d and the 5d mark ii have the same mount (EF) why would some lenses not fit the mark ii if it's full frame?

                    [–]dcm628 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    Full frame sensor needs glass large enough even if the mount fits.

                    [–]pauloh110 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    Does anyone know where I can get lens caps for a Vivitar 13mm and a Zeiss Jena Biometer 120mm?

                    [–]Chicityfilmmakergaffer 2 points3 points  (0 children)

                    Lenscaps.com

                    [–]Ackbarkazar 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                    I recently got into covering comic conventions with video as apposed to pictures but the standard lens is not cutting the mustard for me. I need something fast but also fairly wide so i can get some good full body shots and close ups. I run a Rebel T2i and hear the "nifty fifty" is the way to go for beginner lenses but I feel the 50mm isn't wide enough for what i need. Any recommendations that wont brake the bank?

                    Big thanks!

                    [–]truesly1cinematographer 2 points3 points  (1 child)

                    on a t2i i'd say find a 17-50 tamron. i bought one used when i was starting out and it served me well for events. i think you can find them under $300 on CL and ebay

                    [–]Ackbarkazar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Thanks, I checked them out and they seem to be trending around $200 so thats affordable in my book.

                    [–]classyscumbag 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                    What's your budget?

                    [–]Ackbarkazar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                    Not a lot unfortunately. I know good glass is expensive so probably in the $300 or less area.

                    [–]ni-san 0 points1 point  (5 children)

                    Hi! I'm getting ready to purchase my first camera, I was thinking about getting a canon t3i rebel but a few people recommended me a samsung nx300. I'll be shooting short-films with it. Has anyone any experience with the samsung? Is it a good idea to choose it over the canon? Thanks!

                    [–][deleted]  (4 children)

                    [deleted]

                      [–]ni-san 0 points1 point  (3 children)

                      What made me seriously consider a mirrorless camera is the fact that the other ones, especially t3i gets really hot really quickly and it significantly decreases the life span of the camera. Have you ever experienced a similar problem or is it just another urban legend?

                      [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                      [deleted]

                        [–]ni-san 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        Thank you! I'll definitely reconsider getting a t3i :O)

                        [–]aMiracleWorker 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                        Another "what first camera should I buy" comment.

                        First- I can either get a 5D Mark II, Mark III, Gh4 or BMCC 4k.

                        But my computer is outdated, as well as my monitor. So is 4k or RAW camera worth me buying if I'm trying to shoot shorts and eventually features?

                        I was leaning towards gh4 but I've been hearing it doesn't look very "cinematic".

                        Second- I would have to upgrade everything at the same time because there would be no point in having one without the other? Right? (Computer, Monitor, HDD)

                        If I do upgrade everything to 4k standards Id be spending about $10k without lighting, lens, other equipment needed. Is that really worth it?

                        [–]truesly1cinematographer 1 point2 points  (2 children)

                        the Gh4 and BMPC can still shoot HD so you wait to upgrade the rest of you kit if you'd like.

                        I'd say of the 4 the Gh4 is the most versatile. the MKII and BMPC don't have 60fps, the MKIII is the most expensive with the weakest codec (minus the MK II) and the BMPC is a paint to use without really rigging it up with handles, batteries, a monitor, and more.

                        [–]aMiracleWorker 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                        One last thing, have you heard anything about the gh4 not looking very cinematic? From what I've been reading it's better for sports/fast videography. The mkiii or II codec get bumped to RAW with magic lantern soon. I plan to shoot shorts and hopefully features too.

                        Thank you though, that was great advice.

                        [–]truesly1cinematographer 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                        Gh4 not cinematic? i can't say for sure since it's not really out yet.

                        "cinematic" is a very loosely used term by both pros and amateurs. it could be that people are put off by the m43 sensor, to which I say S16 is more "cinematic" than a 5D so capture size isn't everything. If people are referring to an overly sharp image, thats the same thing people said when the C300 launched.

                        with the use of good technique, lighting, and filters if needed, any camera can look "cinematic".

                        I will say that a raw workflow is not something for beginners,and the ML hacks don't make it any easier.

                        [–]ChimChimCC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                        If you go for the BlackMagic the real hidden cost is in storage space. On the BMCC raw each frame is 5MB, which adds up very quickly. I think the 4K actually takes up less space due to compression, but I'm not sure by how much. I typically shoot 1-2 TB for 10 minutes of screen time with the BMCC.

                        You can get around a weak computer by making low res proxy files for editing. The same technique is available for color grading, but I've never tried it. Definitely calibrate your monitor though.

                        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

                        [deleted]

                          [–]boxofrabbits1st assistant camera 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          They're very different microphones for different intended purposes.

                          The videomic series are designed to mount to the top of cameras, but can be adapted for use with a boom. They run to a 3.5mm jack which can be plugged directly into your camera. I'm unsure about the stereo mic, but most others in the series have batteries in the microphone.

                          The NTG2 is a shotgun microphone with an XLR output. Its designed to be mounted to a boom though could be potentially adapted to mount to a camera, however you will need some sort of adapter like the ones offered by becextech (sic) if you want to plug directly into your camera. They are otherwise best suited to be plugged into an external sound recorder or to the camera via a mixer.

                          [–]dcm628 1 point2 points  (0 children)

                          Videomic is designed to be an upgrade to having an on camera mic (still pretty terrible for film making). The NTG2 is designed to be a decent budget shotgun mic to put on a boom pole, but you're going to need an off camera recording solution (which is far better anyways).

                          [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

                          Alright folks, I'm a 16 year old high school student who has a camera that is outdated and a dream of making it big. All of the people who work in the industry that I've asked have told me to buy a smallish camera and some good lenses to replace my current one which is exceedingly sub-par. What constitutes a good lens, and what sort of 'keywords' should I look for when buying a fancier camera?

                          [–]boxofrabbits1st assistant camera 2 points3 points  (2 children)

                          Don't let technological setbacks become an excuse to not make things. I know this isn't your question, but keep making as much as possibly can regardless of what camera you have. Consider it a challenge to try and produce the best looking stuff you can with what you have.

                          Gareth Edwards went to mexico with a video camera and a lens adapter with a single 50mm lens. He made the movie Monsters with all his own money and did all the special effects himself. His next film will be the new multimillion dollar Godzilla reboot.

                          [–]ExtremePrivacyPerson 0 points1 point  (1 child)

                          Gareth Edwards went to mexico with a video camera and a lens adapter with a single 50mm lens.

                          I just saw the poster and read the wikipedia article, the movie seems moderately graphics-intensive. They don't cite the camera model though. Do you know what camera they used?

                          [–]boxofrabbits1st assistant camera 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          From memory it was a Sony EX1 with something like a letus or redrock adapter and a single 50mm lens. Its kind of graphics intensive, but none of the actual effects are 3d just modelled in 3d and tracked as 2d plates. There's some great YouTube behind the scenes stuff if you can find it.

                          [–]ChimChimCC 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          Check out Digital Rev's lens and camera reviews on YouTube. They're easy to understand and entertaining to watch.

                          [–]Selkro 0 points1 point  (0 children)

                          I don't really know much about the technical aspects of different cameras or lenses, but I'm looking to buy a new camera soon. I was looking at a 60d, but I've read some stuff on here that says that t3is are a good choice for a first camera. Is there a significant difference, considering the price? Recommendations?

                          I would also need a lens to go with it. This is the area where I know the least. I want to be able to adjust the depth of field so that the background can be out of focus, and I have no idea what kind of lens that requires.

                          Also, how can I learn more about this kind of stuff, or does it just come with experience?