[Gary Huff]

[David Mathis] “I been eyeing the Digital Bolex but have yet to hear from anyone on here if it is worth the cost. It only records in 2K format as far as I know which could be a factor in a purchase descion. “

I’m pretty sure it does 1080, but I feel like the Digital Bolex is an oddity that is mostly used to play with and not really as an A-camera system. I find the footage from it to be rather DVX-like, which seems like a step backward. You might get to find a nice price on eBay.

[Gary Huff]

[Andrew Kimery] “How long are you willing to wait? I’m in a similar boat and I’ve pretty much written off the MP.”

I definitely can wait. Not having much call for 4K yet, and it’s mostly about render speed to get it out of the NLE as opposed to needing it to work at all. An offline/online with the C300 Mark II’s proxy setup is definitely workable for the time being.

[Gary Huff]

I am planning my first Mac Pro purchase, but holding off in case of a refresh. 4K is really taxing my current setup, even when using a 1080 timeline.

[Gary Huff]

[Adam Rosenberg] “Why 2.35 and not 2.33 or 2.37?”

Because back in the day it would have required custom glass to natively achieve different ARs outside of matting, and if you’re simply matting, then you’re just losing information. The switch from the 4:3 standard (it’s all 4:3 film from 3:2 AR 35mm stock being run sideways through a projector) to 1.85:1 via matting was mostly a “we must compete with TV!” switcheroo to make movies seem more epic than the shows you got in the comfort of your own living room, and it stuck. Frankly, I’ve enjoyed some modern 4:3 films (The Artist, The Grand Budapest Hotel), and at no point found myself comparing it to TV or feeling constricted. I find the selection of ARs to be rather arbitrary, based on one’s on emotional reaction to the format with technical reasons being fumbled about later.

There is one specific reason to, say, go anamorphic vs. spherical. That would be the vistas. If you’re planning incredibly wide vista shots, then anamorphic may be more appropriate because it’s allowed to stretch out. You can absolutely shoot wide enough to get those vistas in 16:9/1.85:1, but the look of it in that AR may seem a bit odd or wonky. Whether this is entirely due to conditioning (i.e. if you’d never seen a movie before would a 12mm spherical vs a 25mm anamorphic not look as pleasant to the eye) or not is irrelevant, as, either way, if it bugs you it bugs you.

I would ask first, what is the issue with cropping “too little”? Are there elements in the shot that shouldn’t be there like a boom pole? Are there some wonky compositions that reframing would help fix, and cropping looks better than zooming? If so, then I’d simply pick which ever matting AR works best to resolve these elements and simply render it out letterboxed in a 16:9 container.

If, on the other hand, you need to fake a “filmic” element in order to sell the idea of the short film as “looking like a movie”, then I would surmise there are more problems with it than just not seeming cinematic from having a letterboxing element.

[Gary Huff]

FCPX is completed.

[Gary Huff]

[Bill Davis] “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Perfectly describes the future customers of this camera.

[Gary Huff]

[Bill Davis] “They do NOT make them like they used to!”

Yep, they are much better now.

[Gary Huff]

[Robert Trip] “However, when it comes to the court of law we still have the first amendment.”

Which has nothing to do with this.

[Gary Huff]

[Steve Connor] “Just noticed the latest version is available and it adds official support for El Capitan”

Awesome. Planning to wipe and start afresh with El Capitan and this was my last barrier to getting the green light for it. I think I will wait until 10.11.2 is available and then take the plunge.

[Gary Huff]

[Craig Alan] “I was told the firmware on each drive within the unit must match.”

Yeah, I’m not sure I buy that, to be honest.