No, do not always shoot extra footage at 60 or 120. If shooting overcrank without a specific plan of how it will be used in the edit, its best to stick to multiples of the project frame rate so that those clips can be easily played at real time speed without any interpolation if needed. So, yes 60 and 120 for projects that will be released at 29.97p (or 30p), but for 24fps (or 23.976) projects shoot your over crank at 48, 72, 96, or 120. For 25fps projects, shoot over crank at 50, 75, or 100. You get the idea.
FYI SmallHD only works with the probe that has their branding on it, not just any x1
How often have you used a speed booster? With mechanical aperture lenses it’s fine, but the majority of EF glass has an electronically controlled aperture and this is what tends to be the problem with a speed booster adaptor. Frequently the aperture resets itself to a different f stop or it becomes completely uncontrollable requiring either resetting the speed booster or power cycling the camera, or both. I’ve tested multiple brands and it has always been a constant pain in the ass.
Glad to see people are testing other models of working. Completing a documentary in less than a year only works for certain stories and projects, as the article noted. Those short term projects are rarely the best stories or the best made films. Real life is slow and is rarely very compelling when jammed in and cranked out of a factory style production model. Finding great characters and gaining their trust can takes months if not years. And even the best editors may require 6-9 months or more to really get a film honed to its best form. Also worth noting is that if you watch the credits of any well made documentary there is always a long list of grant funders. Why? Because very few feature documentaries make back their budget, so grant funding is absolute necessity for filmmakers who intend to make more than a single credit card or home mortgage financed film in their career. I’d say it’s probably less than 1% that make a profit, but if anyone can find accurate numbers that say otherwise I’d love to see them. Documentary films rarely get financed to generate monetary returns. Instead, the organizations and individuals that fund them are doing it for social capital. This is why the film festivals matter so much. “Executive Producers” who did nothing more than sign a check get to walk down the red carpet and soak in the social esteem. Funders get to crow about the award winning films they’ve made. If the film is about a social justice issue, getting the film into use by teachers or advocacy organizations may be what motivates funding. Selling a potential documentary feature on the profit it will bring is a lot tougher than getting potential funders excited about a story and the impact a film about it could have in the world. I’d love to see that change, for documentary films to make back a net profit without grant funding, but it’s still pretty darn rare.
Same useless crap as the old credit roll feature. A credit roll that will look decent in screen requires parameters to limit it to moving exact pixel amounts per frame. Without it the results jitter and shimmer.
BTW: Nobody needs 4K. If Roger Deakins can shoot a 200million dollar epic that gets screened in IMAX without 4K (Blade Runner 2049 was shot on a standard Alexa sensor) it’s probably a safe bet no one else needs it either.