At least 3 more months before ai takes our jobs edition
All video related questions and discussion is intended for this thread. Here we discuss techniques, gear and anything else related to capturing video footage. Please don't pretend to be an expert if you don't know what you're talking about. Kindly leave your ego at the door.
Posting short films/scripts or other work you've done is encouraged.
We tend to use and recommend DSLRs/mirrorless cameras because they provide phenomenal picture quality for their price, have large sensors (ie the same size used in high-end cinema cameras and higher) and have interchangeable lenses.
In contrast, consumer camcorders often have much smaller sensors and a fixed lens.
>STICKY - https://text.is/QZ1J >Helpful guide, additional books and more in-depth FAQs - https://web.archive.org/web/20200926115310/https://pastebin.com/kG0gRmTZ >NO ONE CARES WHAT AN EXPERT YOU THINK YOU ARE. IF YOU’RE ASKING BASIC-AS-SHIT QUESTIONS, YOU CAN’T BE ALL THAT GREAT. SEE ABOVE Previous thread
>>4421119 Quick FAQS
>what’s the best camera available on a “budget”? The blackmagic pocket cinema camera 4k, or the Panasonic gh5 (can pick one up for like 500 bucks atm)
>what’s a good beginner video camera? Anything that works, shoots at least 1080p and preferably has interchangeable lenses. Any recommendation beyond that will cause arguments so read the fucking sticky if that isn't satisfactory.
>What's a good sound solution that won't break the bank? Zoom h1
>Can I use a zoom lens for video? Yes
>Do I need cine lenses? No
>Do I need 4k? No. 1080 looks great on a cinema screen. 4k looks better.
>Can someone tell me if my video is any good? Yes, but be prepared to receive harsh criticism. If you're going to waste 5 minutes of our time with a shitty out-of-focus montage of nothing then we'll tell you that it's crap
>Is it okay to dox myself? ...Personally I wouldn't but what do I know?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4432908 Yes, anon, thank you very much.
Anonymous
>>4433528 Anybody here primarily make their living off doing social content for clients? Influencers, restaurants, other businesses, etc? I have a buddy doing that in Toronto and I honestly didn't realize people bought paid shoots with nice equipment for social shit. I thought it was 99% interns/owners son with a phone or something. Do businesses see a genuinely better ROI with ""proper"" video content?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433606 Once you start having to crank the stuff out like bigger channels do, typically short videos/reels daily and one or two longer videos a week, yeah usually it gets easier to farm out the video/editing work. Then the “creator” can usually focus on scripting, networking, and promotion and the like. Is it plentiful work? Eh, that I don’t know, but it is out there.
Anonymous
>decide to finally get into video >"I'll make something simple & short first" >solo project >5-10 minutes about the last days of a historic industrial building and the people that work there, before it's demolished, rebuilt and made fully automatic, leaving the old guys out of work and changing the local architectural landscape >script out the general idea >shots of the ancient machinery working, people doing their jobs, breakroom scenes, etc, interior, exterior, and demolishing, a little voice-over, an interview, shoot around the town some too where the building is relevant and visible >simple enough >organize the access >shoot... FOR A WEEK (not all day, but still, different weather and lighting conditions) >4:2:2 4k Log. MUH HDD SPACE >whatever at least the workstation is a beast >still have to go back and get a few shots more that really should be included >start reviewing and organizing the footage >IT'S BEEN A WEEK >start cutting, yea, that's a pile of work right here >grading, etc, still to come >either it was going to be like this from the beginning or this shit has been snowballing Well this photofag here certainly had no fucking idea how much effort goes into making a simple 10minute docu that in photo terms is essentially just a few snapshots
Anonymous
>>4433741 Shoulda just done stills and Ken burnsed the fuck outta it lmao
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433741 Theres a reason why even small yt channels have teams.
Anonymous
>>4433741 This is why the advice for how to start getting into videography is always to just start shooting. It's impossible to convey what it takes through words (in a way that anyone will believe at least). And it's impossible for you to understand what works for you without trying it yourself.
Now that you've gotten a tiny bit of experience, you can dial back and think about what it is you actually need to make the content you want to make. Better mics? Gimbal? Faster lenses? A camera that has smaller file sizes?
You also now hopefully realise why so many shooters find youtube reviewers insufferable because they all review products from the stance of "can I make my tiktok vlog look like it was shot on expensive hollywood equipment with minimal effort from myself?"
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433762 >And it's impossible for you to understand what works for you without trying it yourself this, well for anything really, you need to try the cheap shit first, fail fail fail, then figure out what you need to do next time.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433746 Seriously. Next time I'll be shooting 6K and faking pans in post instead of shooting a bunch of takes trying not to screw up that tripod pan. Or I need top get a better tripod or DIY some handle extensions with a pipe for smooth panning. And zooming with a photo lens... lord have mercy, perhaps I can try attaching some kind of lever to the zoom ring too.
>>4433762 It's been enlightening for sure
>why so many shooters find youtube reviewers insufferable because they all review products from the stance of "can I make my tiktok vlog look like it was shot on expensive hollywood equipment with minimal effort from myself?" Amen
Anonymous
Quoted By:
I can always tell when a youtuber users a sony because their skin is either bright pink or totally lacking in any luminance ("color graded")
Anonymous
>>4433741 >4:2:2 4k Log >grading, etc, still to come You don't need those. Apply a rec709 lut, downscale to HD and don't look back. Focus on the story, the video is just the means to tell it. Plenty of documentaries were made with bare 16mm film stock and they did absolutely no color timing or other tedious bullshit.
Anonymous
ive been dabling in video lately and I like it a lot but the audio quality on my r10 is lacking I dont need anything fancy, just something to capture ambient sounds (trees blowing in the wind, birds chirping, people talking) without the sound of cars driving past or wind blowing making my ears bleed should i buy a stand alone microphone and/or get some software to edit/enhance the stock audio? what mic should I buy? what software do you recomend?
Anonymous
>>4433741 At least you went out and shot something.
I got a lot of gear when I was shooting live bands before Covid. I got Petzval lenses and bokeh control lenses so I could put cool bokeh shapes in the back of the bands and cheap parfocal cinema zooms so I could zoom in on the bands without losing focus. After Covid hit, I lost all of my gigs. Now I have so much gear (most of it used to make cool looking bokeh that only bands or artists or hipsters would care about) that I don’t know what to bring out with me for a shoot or how to land a shoot. How did you get permission to film inside of a factory? I’m a major autist so talking to people ain’t for me. With bands it was easy, they wanted footage to get people to come to their shows or buy thier music.
Now, I just need to figure out what I can film since live music shows ain’t a big thing where I live any more. Most standard video gifs: bands, weddings, etc. died after Covid. What’s in the vogue now so I know who I should ask if they need any filming done.
Anonymous
>>4433896 Told the managing director my plan, and to my surprise the old guy was just happy that there's someone to document the last days of a place he's been working at for decades. Turns out they didn't have any proper photos even. Personally showed me all the machinery, operated some, did a few double takes even for me, got the history, bunch of funny stories, the whole tour, and at one point actually a few hours to shoot completely alone with very nice natural light after they had shut the machines down for the last time.
I'm doing it on my own dime, it will probably not even be seen by anyone other than the (ex-)workers, their families, and the townspeople, or perhaps people in nearby towns who might be interested in it for whatever reasons. All I had was a normal zoom, a 50 prime, 3 batteries, a tripod and a shotgun mic. Not in it for the money as I ruined another artistic hobby of mine by going professional more than a decade ago so I won't be making that mistake again. Arts and money just don't get along in my opinion. Or artists and soulless business fucks, if you will, but I've grown to dislike the client work in general. If some crazy guy wants to just donate money to me, fine, but they get 0 say in what gets made, how, and when.
Alt+tabbing back to Resolve, let's see if I can finish it by the end of this month, this blogposting here is eating into my research- and editing time.
Anonymous
man i cant color grade for shit t. photofag
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433741 keep going
make more nigga
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433956 I never color grade video or photographs I just shoot to JPEG or MKV directly
Anonymous
Quoted By:
what is your opinion on old tape camcorders? The meme is that's the next big thing like how film photography blew up
Anonymous
>>4433915 Fuck man, that actually sounds great. I'm sure the old dude appreciated it in his own way. Lots of the last generation just spent so much time doing one thing and they might feel like the modern age is abandoning the things they stood for.
Unironically and not with douchey intent, I think you've done the one the thing cameras are best for: archiving the things and moments that will soon cease.
Even if you upload the end result to Youtube you can list it privately and just hand out the link to those who are interested.
>t. guy who is interested Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433915 >>4434018 You must live in a smallish town. Most big cities are too rule bound and would never let a camera in their factory for any reason at all because the mba types that work in big cities would never like it even if it was in their own best interest to like it.
t. I love the rural redneck lifestyle and hate the anonymous cityshit
Anonymous
>>4433956 Watch some tutorials.
Waqas Qasi helped me a lot (inb4 spammer gets irate at the mention of his name). It takes time. You have to experiment.
I think the problem people make is that they want something quick.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433915 I hope you post it here. I would like to watch it
Anonymous
>>4434060 > Waqas Quzi Only the people on Re(tard)dit get angry when people mention his name.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433741 >simple >10 min doc lol
Anonymous
>>4434060 >>4434110 Meh, the constant advertising for his shitty LUTs/Plugins is annoying, but don’t give a fuck about him one way or the other outside of that
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4434207 >the constant advertising for his shitty LUTs/Plugins is annoying I swear that's like 50% of all youtubers in this area (filmmaking and production)
Anonymous
>screw up the slow physical zoom on the most important shot >choppy as shit >meticulously go over each of the choppy bits and key a transformation zoom over them in post >one eternity later, it's looking alright life is pain. is there a simpler way, or is this the price to pay for being retarded?
Anonymous
>>4433528 I fucking hate narrative forms. If I want to be told a bunch of shit I’ll read a book. If it’s visual then shut the fuck up and let me look at it if you can communicate something visually then great but otherwise if your video makes me sit and listen while it spews dialogue squeezed into a formulaic plot, then you can go fuck yourself because I ain’t watching that shit. Add that to theater sucking balls because you people are a bunch of filthy apes with bad parenting and yes tv/movies are dead. And good riddance, none of you are making Othello over here. Which is why red letter media might be right about all these films eating ass, but the underlying premise is that every film must be A formulaic three act structure with clearly defined character arcs, conflict, resolution and payoff. Holy fuck how boring. In fact fuck actors I don’t even wanna see actors in anything but porn.
Anonymous
>>4433870 Alternatively you can actually shoot on 16 mm yet and it looks convincingly as beautiful as 16 mm, Cameras and lenses are practically free compared to modern digital video gear, you can scan your film at whatever resolution you want to still retain the pretty color separation and grain after editing that you’re spending a ton of time and money trying to poorly simulate. And then your film will actually exist in the real world as a real object that has actual real value, which though not valued at present will become an issue soon.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4434773 shooting on something like super 16 would be a brutal reality to someone used to digital crutches that's out there shooting 10 to 1 on footage. i can already feel my wallet bleeding
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4434773 >Alternatively you can actually shoot on 16 mm You're either an idiot who's completely oblivious to the process of filmmaking, naively rich, or just a troll. Either way, lmao fuck off
Anonymous
Anonymous
>>4434770 >decrying the death of cinema and visual arts >RLM was right What a weirdly contradictory and schizophrenic take. RLM is everything bad that you mentioned and more because it’s slack jawed surface level “critique” of all the slop you are complaining about. They’re worse than worthless. Just because jay and mike are deluded into thinking that they’re repressed auteurs doesn’t make it true lol
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Thinking about getting a zoom f3 + matched clippy em272 stereo pair + all the mounting accessories to use for my compact travel kinorig, thoughts? But when I added up all the costs it's looking a bit eye-watering, maybe the m3 isn't such a bad alternative after all, or the mke400...
Anonymous
>>4434795 >replying to an obvious retard who just wants attention is this your first day on the internet?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4434573 Getting it right in camera is always easier then fixing it in post.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4434807 Yes, I’m twelve years old and what is this?
Anonymous
If I wish to record myself having sex, what is the ideal framerate?>24 fps >30 fps >60 fps or above
Anonymous
>>4435135 that depends
what's the effect you're trying to achieve?
Anonymous
>>4435135 >24fps for old school vintage porno feel
>30fps for youtube-tier video
>60fps this one
Lighting comes in number two as what's most important and I'd suggest the biggest softbox/diffuser you can convince the girl(man) to not notice. Number one is obviously not being ugly.
Anonymous
>>4435135 high framerates are best with dynamic motion. sick to 24, the extra frames won't do you any favors
Anonymous
>>4435135 > 60 fps or higher If you want it to look like a soap opera or extreme sporting event. Girls gone wild at the xgames or some shitty daytime soap sex bit
> 24 fps If you want it to like cinema like a high-brow artsy porn flick such as last tango in Paris
> 30 fps If you want it to look like a ameture porno shot on somebody’s handycam. 80s vibe amateur porn.
Anonymous
>>4435135 60p.
Not even close. Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking idiot.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
Been wanting to film a porn with me and my wife for awhile now with the BMCC6K. If it turns out good enough, I’m considering removing things like tattoos and blurring our faces for release. Is AI good enough now to “unblur” or approximate a blurred face?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435174 hell yeah bruddah
Anonymous
>>4435135 remember to pick a proper shutter speed to make it
C I N E M A T I C
I
N
E
M
A
T
I
C
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435138 Is the artsy European porn actually shot in 24fps
?
Anonymous
>>4435138 >>4435139 >>4435140 >>4435148 >>4435277 What framerate is
>American >JAV and
>European Shot in? My idea of European is the super “artsy” romantic shallow-focus porn
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435135 >>4435348 what kind of question is this
highest framerate possible is always best
your max framerate is determined by what framerate your camera can shoot at each resolution
but like the earlier anon said the absolutely critical thing is lighting, if you're going to place the camera more than 6 feet away you need at least one $300 light
Anonymous
>>4435348 European is actually 25 fps but it looks so close to 24 fps (the American standard) that you can’t tell the difference.
Anonymous
>>4435357 >The American standard America and Japan both use NTSC which is 29.97 fps.
Some JAVs use 60fps but it creates more work because japs have to manually censor every frame of dick/balls/pussy
Anonymous
>>4435359 I didn’t think the japs censored anything, they give us stuff like hentai and lolicon and toddlercon so why the fuck would they need to sensor out dicks and balls and pussy.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435277 >shutter speed >not wide open shutter angle Anonymous
>>4435362 >so why the fuck would they need to sensor out dicks and balls and pussy Because despite CP only getting fully banned 30 years ago there's been a low for like 100 years that makes all porn illegal (it's legally only pseudo-porn if censored)
Anonymous
https://helpx.adobe.com/premiere-pro/using/whats-new/2025-3.html#NVIDIA-Blackwell-Architecture-GPUs Support for NVIDIA Blackwell Architecture GPUs
Premiere Pro now supports NVIDIA Blackwell GPU acceleration for 4:2:2 video, unlocking fast playback performance. 4:2:2 video delivers twice the color detail of 4:2:0 with only a modest increase in file size, making it ideal for precise color grading, cleaner chroma keying, and crisper text rendering. Editors using NVIDIA Blackwell GPUs can take full advantage of accelerated 4:2:2 playback.
Anonymous
>>4435411 I will never switch from AMD
Anonymous
>>4435135 The absolute madman actually did it.
I suggested asking this question on /p/ instead of /adv/ half jokingly
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435386 Is that why those japs are into cartoon tentacle rape porn because it technically isn’t porn because it’s a cartoon and not live action?
Anonymous
>>4435432 A madman would suggest using an Arri Alexa 35 and a set of master primes and master anamorphics. Asking which focal length would be best for the booty shot?
Anonymous
>>4435453 just hire a competent focus puller
Anonymous
>>4435454 Yeah but if you're hiring a puller, you need to hire a fluffer as well
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4433876 Get a shotgun mic if you want to get selective about what you're picking up.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435468 you're not gonna get smooth pulls like that anon
Anonymous
>>4434060 >Waqas Qasi I used to like him but then he started shilling his dumb plugins in every video.
And he's just released a video comparing the sony fx2 to the lumix s1ii where he concludes that the fx2 has much better image quality. He did this by grading fx2 footage and then copying the exact same grade to s1ii footage and going "wow look how much worse it looks!" like he didn't just spend 20 minutes creating a grade specifically fine-tuned to one camera and not the other.
And then he turned comments off on the video so that no one could point out how stupid this test was.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435561 So he’s now a Sony shill. Go fig. He used to be good. His older videos on how to get your shitty footage to look like Hollywood films used to be good. And now he’s pushing Sony cameras. This reminds me why I hate YouTube video influencers so much,
Anonymous
>>4435561 >stop insulting the s1ii, saar! The S1II is a $3000 camera with the autofocus of a Z6... and if you want to say "real cinema is shot in manual focus", well, actual cinema bodies are made for that, with better everything than panasonic can manage. Also, panasonic FF color science is notoriously bad. Lots of very dull, cold, and tinted footage comes out of panasonic users similar to early gen snoy.
I can never fault someone for shitting on a company that makes such shitty products their sole gimmick is enabling literally every video codec as if to beg people to buy their junk, much like I can not fault people for shitting on sony (the inverse, their only gimmick is autofocus actually working)
Anonymous
>>4435591 The only thing panny offers is great ibis for run and gunners who don’t want to buy a gimbal.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435601 Everyone does that now. The ibis+estab on the zf is the best unless you are purposefully being an idiot (protip: every youtuber stab test you have seen was botched to bias it in favor of whatever brand sends them the most free shit)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435591 I don't give a shit how good the s1ii is or isn't.
It's a very apparent fact to literally everyone (other than sony shills) that the fx2 is a steaming pile of shit. To manufacture such a biased test like this just to try and convince people otherwise is a fucking disgrace
>tldr; fuck off sony shill Anonymous
>>4433528 >Zoom h1 I couldn’t find it. I read I suppose to buy the H1n version. But it seems to sold out everywhere.
Good alternative?
Anonymous
>>4435417 Both are out to fuck you over, AMD just has a smaller peen.
Anonymous
>>4435771 the h1 is the old tiny plastic one, i have a few hiding somewhere. it's ok for wired lavs. i think it's replaced by the zoom f1-lp
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435788 AMD jest werks
at least they aren't trying to get GROK and CHATGPT to fuck my ass yet
Anonymous
>>4435771 >>4435834 As the guy said, H1n was dicontinued. The replacement is supposedly Zoom H1essential.
Anyways, I was just trying to buy a microphone for recording. A bit confused about recorder (like Zoom H1) and a mic (Rode, Shure, etc.). Google failed me.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435850 There was a Zoom H1 before H1n. The OP was written years ago.
Anonymous
>>4435139 >Number one is obviously not being ugly ...and number two is fuck like this hero. If either fails not even 8K ARRI footage with pro lights saves you.
Anonymous
>>4436155 I love how his Netflix bio documentary thing has a scene with him basically admitting to mouth raping an old lady neighbour and it was played as “haha that was a formative experience”. Omega chad
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436164 Obviously made up, along with the majority of stories in that film and 99% of all trash “documentaries”
Worst genre outside of sci-fi and faith
Anonymous
>>4435139 >>4436155 Who the fuck is looking at a guy's face when they're jorking their peanitus to porn? Just wear a mask, why would you want people seeing you fucking. Unless it's gay porn then I get it man.
Anonymous
>>4436212 I’m not gay. But I’d love to watch lesbians fucking each other. If they got good looking big busted supermodels to play the lesbians. I don’t need no girl that looks like a man in my porn; I don’t wanna watch a horror flick when I watch porn.
Anonymous
>>4436216 >shoot lesbian scene with insanely attractive girls who somehow both have athletic, toned stomachs, wide hips and large milkers >spend 90% of the video focused on ultra closeups on their very generic vaginas that look like literally any other vagina The people who make porn piss me off so much. I'm certain that they do this shit on purpose.
Anonymous
>>4436230 are you watching western porn or something?
only the Japanese still make good porn
Anonymous
>>4436231 >20 minutes of fondling nipples under bra and you can't even see them while she screeches like a banshee wow anon it's excellent.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4435135 >60 fps That shit needs to look hyper real or else it's pointless.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436234 Yeah gonna have to agree with this anon, it’s mostly shit and censored ontop of it. I’ll never understand the banshee screaming either
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>static tripod shot >nothing is moving >not even bugs or dust flying >accidentally activate noise reduction node >realize it could've just been a 30mb raw photo+grain node instead of a 500mb clip sometimes it takes eating a pack of crayons to realize that maybe you got conceived with a weak sperm
Anonymous
200, 300 bitrate a waste of time?
Anonymous
How come no one posts little webm clips of stuff they vid here?
Anonymous
>>4436468 People who film good stuff:
>willingly doxing yourself People who film shit:
>exposing others to your aimless crap Anonymous
>>4436478 Just like little clips of stuff people are actually working on or even just misc clips they have no where else to share or behind the scenes
It's extremely easy to share stuff that is effectively not doxxable, and even then people share stuff here all the time without being doxxed
Anonymous
>>4436478 This
>>4436500 Yeah I’m just not willing to spend the time posting shit like that here and take the chance.
I have thought in the past, it’s funny- you make a post like on Reddit, and nobody gives a flying fuck (could arguably even help your career). Make a post like that here, and you’re potentially ruining your career and destroying your life.
Anonymous
>>4436518 That's just paranoia
Anonymous
>>4436519 I’m okay with being paranoid.
Let’s say I post some shit here. What can I expect to gain from it?
A few anons say “wow that’s great”- okay, a slight confidence boost but I personally don’t need it
A few anons say “wow that’s total fucking shit kys” I’m not bothered by criticism but again I don’t need it
A few anons track me down somehow and destroy all social media posts I currently have and potentially continue to do so for the foreseeable future- yeah I’m not interested
Anonymous
>>4436523 why post anything anywhere at all
why even respond
Anonymous
>>4436523 Would you rather be on a photography board where people actually share the images and video?
Or one where no one ever posts any actual images or footage?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436525 Go to Reddit and see the “quality” of the footage that gets posted
Yeah we’re not losing anything here
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436524 Unironically this though. My work is for me and that’s satisfactory enough. But I also don’t record video like a fag sorry to barge in on your ladies thread here
Anonymous
>>4436518 Most people who are posting on here don’t have a career that anybody could ruin. All they do is film cats and videos to piss off liberals.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436603 Then in that case I agree, post away
Anonymous
>>4436603 I shoot corporate and can't post anything real for that reason, but I've posted lens and filter tests on this board
Anonymous
>>4436656 I am secretly joey lawrence
Anonymous
>>4436656 I am WanderingDP. Why do you all hate me?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436684 >>4436685 Also, I actually started in audio first, which is equally useless for posting here because there's nothing but questions about mouting a shitty shotgun to your camera
Anonymous
posted again from the last thread How can I get rid of my fatfuck heavy breathing when I film? Other than losing weight what can I do regarding mics or settings on the camera to get rid of my heavy ass breathing? I have a Lumix S5IIx Obvious answer is lose weight/have better cardio but I am working on that now. In the meantime should I just film without sound?
Anonymous
>>4436937 >average panasissy cardioid mic
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436603 Most people here don't actually film anything apparently
Anonymous
>>4436656 You don't do any video stuff for fun? Work only? Sad
Anonymous
>>4436953 That's how it works when you have children
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436937 Stand further away from your camera/microphone?
Wear a facemask?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436979 >when you have children Jesus, I’m sorry
Anonymous
>>4436979 I understand, it must be a lot of work to go down to your basement and feed your child sex slaves.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4437059 Don't be silly, Prime delivers and it's easy to throw slop in the trough
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436937 Position the mic above you and away from your mouth. Point it towards your chest.
Anonymous
>>4436937 I'm in very good shape but the RODE VMP+ on S5iix still picks up the slightest sound I make behind the camera. I have to breathe slowly through an open mouth, not swallow, and generally not act like an ape. When possible I take a few steps back from the camera.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436937 I'm almost 300 pounds and my breathing is completely silent
just don't be a mouthbreathing subtard
Anonymous
>>4437259 Don't have one, but the spec says supercardioid, there is still a rear lobe unlike a cardioid pattern, all you can really do is lower the gain or stand further from the camera / put the camera on a rod
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4437259 what sort of things are you filming?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4437534 The datasheet has the exact measurement. It's even more pronounced relative to the front pickup.
Anonymous
>>4437534 I actually don't mind and find it rather good to get more ambiance instead of a narrow shotgun field, it's a better all-arounder imo than a pure shotgun, but still not as wide as an omni mic, best of both worlds. I just take care to be quiet.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4437908 The best of both worlds is wide cardioid. Omni catches way too much of what is happening outside of the frame. Shotguns are only ever useful if you're shooting people talking and need a clearer sound, otherwise they sound awful for ambiance.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4436381 For inter-frame compression, largely yes. For intra-frame you're most likely reaching those bitrates either way if you're shooting 50 or 60fps.
Anonymous
I just bought a Pentax KF, because it has a flippy screen and PDAF in live view mode, to do video. How fucked am I? If I get good audio and lighting, am I still solid?
Anonymous
>>4438149 yeah you did kinda fuck up, shoulda got a panasonic micro four thirds
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4438170 but I already had the Pentax lenses. A couple years ago I got the whole suite of FA Limited and DA Limited primes, a 28-105, 18-135, DA* 16-50, DA* 11-18, all for $200 bucks at an estate sale. They've been sitting around and I've been using a Panasonic but Panasonic started pissing me off, so I got the KF as a hiking camera and video. Plan on eventually getting a Blackmagic something-something and adapting K lenses to EF if I actually do start making video.
I was hoping with good lighting and audio, I can turn out some pleasing Youtube videos, don't expect pro-tier results. And once I build up lighting/audio, and I am actually making pleasing video instead of just asperger tier BS, I could justify buying a nice blackmagic camera.
Or am I totally fucking stupid?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4438170 >hehe, they won't notice Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4438170 >MFT lord almighty do mft troglodytes really?? why spread your misery
Anonymous
Matte boxes A necessary pain in the ass. Fuck me, configuring these things in a rig system has to be easier. Do you guys with experience on them, do you trust clamp them on a lens?
Anonymous
>>4438419 >A necessary pain in the ass They aren't necessary?
When you're in controlled lighting environments, they're redundant. When you're not they're helpful but a lot of lenses have hoods anyway that do the same thing and are much smaller.
Matte boxes most common use is just for convincing clients that you're a professional and impressing actors on set.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4438419 i just use smallrig, it jest werks
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4438428 nah the main use is so you can slap modifiers on top easily
you can just put gels or film cut in rectangular on top of it
Anonymous
>>4438428 The main use for the matte box is to slap on on your shitty dslr or mirrorless camera so your clients will think you are using a cinema camera; then you can charge them a higher day rate. They are also used to hold nd filters so you don’t need to get a filter set for each lens size you own. You get get one for your matte box.
Anonymous
>>4438448 >think you are using a cinema camera What kind of boomer thinks there's a noticeable difference between an FX2 and a cinema camera?
>buh muh medium size sensor Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4438450 When kitted out with a cage, rails, vct mount, fx30/fx3/fx2 does become heavier, longer, bigger. With all the accesories it has the presence of a camcorder rather than a hybrid.
Anonymous
>>4438450 >What kind of boomer thinks there's a noticeable difference between [insert sub 5k camera] All of them. Clients see behind the scenes pics of large rigs and hear how red is amazing from their super smart friends who clearly know a lot about the industry and then get underwhelmed when you show up with a small dslr and think you look like an amateur.
But show up with a red komodo, a v-mount battery, cage and matte box and suddenly you're clearly super professional and worth thousands a day regardless of whether or not you actually produce a better video.
Also the fx2 is absolute trash and notably worse than the average hybrid camera that costs over 1500 bucks.
Anonymous
>>4438552 If you show up with a gh5 or a bmpcc 4k kitted out with a matte box and v mount battery and follow focus unit and a cage and rails and external monitor and wireless stuff on it—most clients couldn’t tell the difference between that and a red.
Anonymous
>>4438555 True. But some will. Relatively few. But some. And those that do will be willing to pay more for a red.
(Of course, you can almost definitely trick them but just putting a red sticker on your camera)
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4438555 yes, thats the point he's making.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4438557 > you could trick them by putting a red or an arri sticker on your potato camera That’s my point, exactly, most people who say they want a red or an arri don’t even know what a red or an arri really is. They’re paying you for how your gear looks not what your gear actually is.
Anonymous
>to shoot any kind of decent looking video you need at least 2 cameras of the same make and model with the same lens making videos is only for rich people i'm done
Anonymous
>>4439493 >you need at least 2 cameras No.
Anonymous
>>4439630 How am I supposed to do anything without a b cam bro
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4439493 If you get coverage and blocking don’t right, you can get away with using one camera. 2 or more cameras (some filmmakers use 10) with the same lens are for people who don’t plan their shoots and don’t do blocking before the shoot to get the coverage they need.
Anonymous
>travel for work to random places in the USA >decide I'll start filming talking head/docu style and feature some stuff related to my yt niche with the spare time I have during work travel >buy a travel tripod since none of mine even fit in my large luggage, some relevant niche stuff, even concealer for the dark circles under my eyes, and practiced using it, been planning for months >flew to a desertey area and it's fucking raining all week during summertime thanks for reading my blog
Anonymous
>>4439643 And here I am using mascara to make fake eye bags before I go on camera
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4439689 just don't sleep lol
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4439493 >>4439631 >a whole new generation of retards with zero patience who refuse to spend time trying to master their craft Anonymous
Is it alright to have 60fps video on a 30fps timeline? I'm wondering how the dropped frame thing will look (if it happens at all) or if it being a even division will mean that isn't an issue.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4440668 It's 2025, you should be using AI to generate inter-frames to up-frame all your videos to 200fps
Then you can sell them for more money because 200fps
Clueless Faggot !LUYtbm.JAw
>>4440668 If you're going to drop the end result to 30fps the software is (normally) smart enough to just drop every other frame. The problem is, if you shoot at 180* shutter (which you should be), 1/125th shutter speed is going to look a bit choppy and "sharper" at 30fps due to the lack of motion blur. If you shoot at 1/60th 60fps and export at 30fps it should be the exact same as shooting in 30fps 1/60th.
You're basically encroaching on how sports broadcasters deliver 25/30fps footage but are able to produce slow-motion clips on demand; they're normally shooting at like 1/200th/1/250th shutter speed.
Anonymous
>>4440668 jaggedness is more a function of shutter angle and light on target imo. everything looks sharper when you nuke it
Anonymous
>>4433528 >look for jobs in video production >"we are looking for an experienced content creator" >look for jobs in film >crickets thinking of giving up and going back to computer science. film and video is dead around here. at least i can still make my own stuff.
Anonymous
So I have been offered a job to be 2nd assistant director. But I have no experience on set and being a 4chan poster I am a NEET autist. I am not a total retard though. I am a good artist when I am not suicidal. I have made some good work. What should I do bros? Should I accept it? Is this job difficult? I live in a turd world shithole so I really really need the money and work but at the same time I am scared that I'll fuck up big time, lose spaghetti and run back home to rot. At the same time I am afraid that this might be the last opportunity to "make it"... What I should do? Please help. Are set difficult?
Anonymous
>>4441154 if you don't live in a film hub all you can do is volunteer on other people's indie projects to network and then pa slave on paid projects. connections are the only thing that really matters, sucks for gen z
Anonymous
>>4441165 Do you want the job?
Do you think it'll be fun?
If yes to either or both I say fuckkit why not.
Just act like you know what you ae doing, and just don't worry about shit
Sets are chaos but everyone is doing their job
do what you are supissed to do and don't walk into anything
You'll do fine
I'll be rooting for you
Anonymous
>>4441154 >content creator What's that entail? Editing boring insta videos with a million cuts?
Anonymous
>>4441165 >I really really need the money and work Then do it
>but at the same time I am scared that I'll fuck up big time, lose spaghetti and run back home to rot Oh no!!! Who gives a fuck if this even happens? Laugh it off and it’ll still be a good story to tell.
Anonymous
>>4441165 >What should I do bros? Should I accept it? Yeah.
If suck at it, you can either learn from your mistakes or try something else. If you're good at it, they'll call you back for more gigs and maybe promote you to 1st AD
Anonymous
Instead of this “fake it til you make it” garbage bullshit, how about just sincerity and honesty? If someone was like “I’ve never done this before, its my first time, but I genuinely want to learn and will work extremely hard for you” I’d be way more willing to work with them and forgive potential mistakes. If someone lied to me and then fucked up, I’d never work with them again.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4441253 content creator is code for porn director
Anonymous
>>4441292 I hired a pa who said something very similar to that a couple of years ago. She was great. I'm actually annoyed that I won't be able to use her again in the near future because she's busy at filmschool now.
But I'm an indie director with no funding and I earned my stripes acting as a one-man band. A lot of productions are former filmschool kids who are imitating hollywood stupidity and won't settle for anything less than "perfect" (technical perfection, artistically devoid). They don't have the time or patience to teach and will shout at each other and pass the buck the second something goes wrong.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4441317 Hopefully film school doesn’t ruin her and turn her from a freethinking artist into another Hollywood zombie!
Anonymous
>>4441317 >former filmschool kids who are imitating hollywood stupidity and won't settle for anything less than "perfect" (technical perfection, artistically devoid) This is what I’ve been afraid of encountering. Do they turn down work on smaller budgets/crewsize that literally cannot achieve Hollywood standards?
Anonymous
>>4441317 >>4441380 >when you're a real film maker making true cinema that nobody appreciates Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4441179 >>4441279 >>4441283 >>4441292 Thank you for replying. Yeah I am going to refuse this. I'll certainly fuck up. I am too mentally ill for the job.
Anonymous
>>4441390 I'd rather be Neil Breen than any of the soulless "indie" directors who can only make stuff if their professors' friends will give them five million in funding for a story about sexism/homosexuality/racism (told from a white guilt perspective obviously).
>>4441380 Pretty sure they'll take any job if you pay them what they think they're worth. They'll just be rude on set and laugh to themselves every time you don't do things the way they were taught.
>Oh wow, you're not setting up a bounce light to a complete a 3 point lighting system? That's an... "interesting" choice I guess. >When I was working on a little film called Everything, Everywhere All at Once, we literally threw at peanuts at a pa who asked what apple boxes for haha but every set is different! Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4441390 neil breen makes what he wants and actually finishes projects. i can't be mad at that.
Anonymous
>>4441603 I guess the best way to combat this would be to get ahead of it during hiring phase and take some time to really explain the production to them. “This is a micro-budget production” “most days will have a smaller production crew than you may have normally experienced” “we will be doing setups that might be a bit experimental and out of the norm to what you’re used to, these are covered in our storyboards and shotlists for you to review”
“If any of this sounds uncomfortable for you, I completely understand and look forward to working with you on a different project that fits your style better”
There’s gotta be people out there that want to work on shit that isn’t garbage Netflix sci-fi horror.
Anonymous
>>4441679 I say pretty similar stuff like this to actors when I'm vetting them.
The difference is that proper PAs and shit are a lot more expensive than actors. You can get actors for well under 100/day because there are so many and they often want to "work" as an actor. If they're being paid to act then they're closer to their endgoal of supporting themselves only through acting. There are a lot of good actors in that space.
With crew and shit, it's not the same. If you're paying less 150/day you probably won't get any applicants altogether and the ones you do will mostly be hustlers trying to scam you. There are "standard" rates for crew jobs. It's more efficient to hire people with barely any film experience and then teach them. But you've got to find them which can be hard.
But yeah, if you can afford their rates, the crew will help you out. That doesn't mean they won't be condescending on set. They aren't people pleasers by and large. They're tradespeople working in film for whatever dumb reason. So they have a similar attitude. They know their shit (hopefully). They don't care about the rest.
People that are passionate about films/filmmaking don't work below the line (ignoring runners etc on larger sets). Or if they do, they quickly lose their passion. For what it's worth, they're dicks on larger sets too. But there's more money and connections involved so they're smart enough to not burn bridges (most of the time)
What you really want, if you can afford it, is to build a personal crew of friends who will help you out on all your shit. But that's really hard. I don't quite know how people like William Baker on youtube manage it because I can't see his youtube channel making enough money to fund teams like that. But it's doable.
Anonymous
>>4441690 >You can get actors for well under 100/day because there are so many and they often want to "work" as an actor Really? I’ll be damned, figured they would still be the most expensive.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4441690 >build a personal crew of friends who will help you out on all your shit I had this, then I moved, and now I’m fucked.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4440704 Based, thank you. The final result will be 30fps footage, but potentially with some slow-mo footage on b-roll. In that circumstance I wonder about it being a 60fps timeline instead despite the majority of footage being 30fps and the 60fps being used only for slowing (though I'm seconding guessing this even as I write it).
>>4440726 Some footage will use screen recordings from a computer (using a browser, programs, etc) that is 60fps and cut down to 30fps, and in that circumstance I really don't know how something like shutter angle would apply. Would that footage still get choppy in moderate motion?
Anonymous
>>4441698 You need to be a better director than the greatest directors in history to make a crew full of 100/day actors perform reasonably well
at that level you're basically hiring trained monkeys that you have to order in every minute detail to even approximate human reality
Anonymous
>>4441784 Why? Just use poor actors and go for that b movie or campy movie vibe and it’ll be all good. Unless you are doing a serious drama you don’t need a good and expensive actor. Just makes cheesy sci-fi stuff and any actor will do.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4441603 >3 point lighting system I thought these were out of style?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4441792 at that point just make porn
at least you have a chance to profit
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4441173 i knew this from the get go but honestly i'm keen to work on indie stuff more than paid productions. they're few and far between and pay less than working a bar. at least this way i get to make stuff with friends and make stuff i want to.
>>4441253 pretty much. it can vary job to job but all of it entails making shortform portrait garbage. some business want "user generated content" which is talking to your camera promoting some bullshit. others want "trend" videos like "a day in the life of x". i'd rather kill myself in fact i might.
Anonymous
>>4441784 >You need to be a better director than the greatest directors in history to make a crew full of 100/day actors perform reasonably well This is completely untrue and you're either talentless, an idiot or surrounded by idiots to say this.
There are so many great actors who have yet to get their big break who will work for this price range. The market is oversaturated, it's impossible for every good actor to have a half decent career. Additionally, the most important thing isn't even how good their acting is but how well they're cast. Almost every shit actor has one or two roles they'll nail. The skill is finding that actor for whatever role you need cast.
Anonymous
>>4441942 So, you are saying something like, if you need to play an autist in your film and you cast a bad actor who is an autist you might get the performance you need out of him even if he is a crappy actor.
Anonymous
>>4441967 Sort of...
If we use a less stupid example, if you need a neurotic asian storekeeper for a scene, then hiring an asian guy who's transitioned from storekeeping to acting will probably fit perfectly. He already understands storekeeping, you already buy him as a storekeeper. The director just needs to keep his stiffness in check and actually direct him.
But you don't need to cast someone with 1:1 experience. If you need a drug-taking punk, you don't need to find someone who actually has that past. You just find someone who's relatively young and "hard-looking" who can bring the right energy. There are a lot of people who fit that bill but have very little range and wouldn't be able to play a wealthy tech manager for example. But they'd still be great playing the druggy.
Like I said, it's all about putting time and effort in the casting process. You do it right, you can find a perfect actor for pretty much every role provided you understand that they'll be limited in how much variance they can provide and how much actual directing they'll need to not ham the scene up.
Anonymous
>>4441979 So if you want a washed out or burnt out basketball player in a scene it’s best to find a basketball player or other sports person or jock who’s getting intro acting rather then teaching an actor how to act like a basketball player. Less work to get more accuracy. I kind of get it.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4442038 In simplified terms, yes.
It's not as straightforward as that in practicality. If you cast for that role and take 20 self-tapes/auditions from unknown actors with little experience, you'll likely find at least 3 people who can competently portray the role in the way you want it done (not necessarily perfect, but competent).
But you'll have to direct them properly, and they won't be good for any random role you need filling. It's more likely that the ones you find will have a background in sports. But it could be that they were sporty when they were like 12 and grew out of it because it was too much pressure. Or it could be that they're a gym rat who watches a lot of football on tv but has never taken sports seriously themselves. Or it could be that they've never been massively into sports aside from kicking a ball around with their friends but they just happen to be able to channel some other experience into that exact mindset.
To give an example, I cast a sexually-charged female killer a few years back. Think Elizabeth Hurley in Bedazzled - that sort of thing. I got a pretty good self tape back from an actress and asked how she got into that mindset and prepared. She told me she did a bunch of research on sociopathy and watched films about killers etc She took it really seriously.
I then got an absolutely fantastic self tape from another actress afterwards. I asked her the same question. She said she didn't really. She just relaxed and basically spent 5 minutes thinking about the script before recording and then just sent off her first attempt at it to me.
(And the other thing to bear in mind is that a good self tape needs context. You need to make sure it's not a fluke. I've had at least one case where I got a perfect self tape but quickly realised when talking to the actor that they were only coincidentally in the right frame of mind due to personal reasons. I asked for a 2nd tape and it was terrible)
Anonymous
>>4441603 I'd rather be Neil Breen than any of the soulless "indie" directors who can only make stuff if their professors' friends will give them five million in funding for a story about sexism/homosexuality/racism (told from a white guilt perspective obviously).
I'd rather be Neil Breen than not make movies. I'm fully beyond shame at this point. I don't care. It's getting made. Everyone will watch and judge my movies and there will be hate and I'm okay with that.
Donate ten bucks to my cause and you can read a page of my script and wonder over the rest.
https://darkspellcaster2.gumroad.com/l/rhpfvb?_gl=1*gg7786*_ga*MTc4ODAyMjU3OC4xNzUwODY0Mzc1*_ga_6LJN6D94N6*czE3NTE0NzA3MzYkbzQkZzEkdDE3NTE0NzE2MjIkajE5JGwwJGgw Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4442679 Forgot to greentext
>I'd rather be Neil Breen than any of the soulless "indie" directors who can only make stuff if their professors' friends will give them five million in funding for a story about sexism/homosexuality/racism (told from a white guilt perspective obviously). Yeah.
Anonymous
Anonymous
Why is it that people will accept low video quality but won't accept poor audio quality?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4442766 That’s just a meme to sell you audio gear. What people really want is a good story? They’ll forgive poor audio and poor video if the story they’re watching is compelling enough. Focus on making an awesome story, and worry about gear later.
Anonymous
>>4442766 because the audience needs to hear what the fuck your talent is saying nolan
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4442789 the frustrating thing is that audiences give Nolan a pass just because the soundtrack is good
Anonymous
Anonymous
Why the fuck do these old DPs and light technicians didn't transferred their knowledge to younger generations? This shit looks fucking insane. Modern films look like ass. Now even few of the remaining credible boomers are dying and you're stuck with gimble and vertical frame zoomer monkeys.
Anonymous
>>4443880 The boomers probably studied fine art before finding their way into film rather than looking at films/youtube and then making movies.
Anonymous
>>4443880 Jesus this conversation keeps coming up, but rarely on /vid/ and I assumed it was because people who had actually used a camera before understood why the topic is so retarded.
There are so many reasons it's not worth covering them all. But the biggest reason comes down to contemporary filmmaking teams not wanting to make films that look like that.
The second biggest reason (or the reason why producers especially aren't keen on that aesthetic) is that audiences don't like it. When you're terminally online, it's easy to get swept up in whatever the online retard conversation is. For a few years, so-called "cinephiles" have been jerking off about the classic "film look". But you know who hasn't? Actual movie-goers. The normie public who don't sit in internet chatrooms talking about The Guns of Navarone.
Films from the 60s, for example, look dated. All of this shit is lead by money. Kids don't find something like Barry Lyndon as aesthetic as Ridley's Napoleon for example. Audiences prefer colour-coded scenes. They prefer shallow depth of field. They prefer natural-looking soft lighting (with obvious exceptions). To them, it looks more "cinematic".
"Cinephiles" never want to hear this. But it's true. Multiple tests confirm it.
If you want to recreate a look like that, it's not particularly difficult. But people that attain the skill/money to do so find that with the control over the image you have you can make something that they find more interesting, and the money-men will want something that looks more modern.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4443927 it's the same posters every time
Anonymous
>>4443927 it's not only the "modern" film look (which is WORSE), it's how information is conveyed in the frame (modern DOPs lack basic composition skills)
Anonymous
>>4443888 That and most of the early cinematographers started out as photographers. That’s why every image looks beautiful like a photograph. They didn’t intentionally dirty up the image back then.
Anonymous
>>4444134 >They didn’t intentionally dirty up the image back then Elaborate on what you mean by this, because you’re about to get your ass handed to you
Anonymous
>>4443927 DOP cope
Stop making flate soulless shite and learn to compose my nigga. Imagine giving a fuck what some plebs in the audience want. Director should only give a fuck about what he cares about. Art house directors have lost the confidence. This reply is a great example. A filmmaker on 4chan is defending "muh public demand, ffs.
>>4444134 >most of the early cinematographers started out as photographers. Fucking trvke
Bodied that fucking modern DOP
Anonymous
>>4444196 >A filmmaker on 4chan is defending "muh public demand, ffs. You're literally out here implying that artists should cater to the incredibly small minority of retards who have zero understanding of the process and just want to see the films from yesteryear again.
Honestly, shut the fuck up. You want to do it? No one's stopping you (except for you)
Anonymous
>>4444224 What do audience want these? Can't you have great composition in whatever gritty shit they want? Or handheld slop is the only accepted form of camera?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4444224 >>4444247 Why modern DOPs pussy out from using tungsten lights?
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4444181 Underexposed image so fucking dark you can’t see what’s going on. For some reason modern film makers love doing that.
Anonymous
>>4444247 >Can't you have great composition in whatever gritty shit they want? Sicario has fantastic composition, for example. As does 1917, Conclave and Bardo off the top of my head. I didn't even love Conclave but it looked nice. I don't know if you're actually dumb enough to think that no contemporary films have good composition but if you are then there's not much to say other than grow up and watch more films.
Anonymous
>>4444341 I loved the look of no country for old men. I just hate the underexposed films like the new batman where you can’t see what’s going on. I loved the way joker looked.
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4444344 pulled down is the meta, i literally did that on a edit to joke with a friend and he said it looked like a streaming show lol
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4444341 none of this shit looks as good as this
>>4443880 >>4444344 >I loved the look of no country for old men. HECKINRINO THE WARM LOOKRINO
compare that shit with for example Cremator and see how it falls apart.
>I loved the way joker looked. Kek
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4443880 Laziness thanks to "fix it in post", which is arguably also an issue in photography now too. It's only going to get worse with AI.
Anonymous
>>4444131 Sometimes I wonder if I should shoot in 4:3 and crop to 16:9 in post, just for the challenge and doing it the classic way. It would mean being stuck with 1080p since 4K would be pre-crop but it still feels like it would be fun.
Anonymous
>>4444538 Don't. 4:3 is a superior aspect ratio. 16:9 is utter and total trash. it's a damn shame that trash like 16:9 became the """standard"""
Anonymous
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4444542 contrarianism has truly gone too far
Anonymous
Quoted By:
>>4444538 If you want to shoot wide just get an anamorphic lens, they aren't that expensive.