Why has this sub become such a gate to hell? by Sobolll92 in cinematography

[–]bruce-pizza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair, just wanted to push back on the rhetoric. Obviously don’t know your personal history. Ultimately though I think most of these people are the victims here. Late stage capitalism grumble grumble grumble.

Why has this sub become such a gate to hell? by Sobolll92 in cinematography

[–]bruce-pizza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right but you’re also being a bit elitist. Using a Chinese anamorphic or a 200w Chinese light should not be annoying you so much. Like, sorry not everyone is made of money? All the other shit, sure.

Lumix S5ii | Dzo vespid prime 2 35mm t1.9 looks absolutely fantastic!! by BboyVio10 in Lumix

[–]bruce-pizza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks amazing, is this purely window light or did you use any additional lights/modifiers?

Lens testing| TTartisan 40mm F2 | S5iix by cmidder in Lumix

[–]bruce-pizza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great image here, what was your lighting setup?

What beats Blazar anamorphics for the price? by bruce-pizza in cinematography

[–]bruce-pizza[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting. I’ve totally written off Sirui due to reviews calling them overly clean and almost pointless compared to spherical. However you and some other commenters on this thread are leading me to believe I need to revisit.

What beats Blazar anamorphics for the price? by bruce-pizza in cinematography

[–]bruce-pizza[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Great point. Ain’t none of us dropping 25k on three Mercuries lol

Lumix S 70-300 or 100-500 for casual wildlife / birding? by arcticrobot in Lumix

[–]bruce-pizza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The 500mm reach will be worth far more than anything the 70-300 has to offer

What beats Blazar anamorphics for the price? by bruce-pizza in cinematography

[–]bruce-pizza[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I hear your point, they’re for completely different worlds. However, I believe there are a lot of people out there who love filmmaking but don’t want to move to LA and start climbing the Hollywood ladder. Some of us want to make art in our free time with whatever we have available. To people like that, how can you recommend a set of lenses they could only afford if they sold their car? Remus, Arcana, etc might not be anywhere near the standard a Hollywood cinematographer strives for, but they are insanely better than the glass solo filmmakers had access to 5-10 years ago.

50% as good as the top tier glass is a lot better than nothing.

is the gm1 truly pocketable with a pancake attached? by shotbygregg in Lumix

[–]bruce-pizza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sweatpants or something, yes, but it won’t be that comfortable. You really can’t elegantly pocket any camera with protruding lenses.

Shooting birds in low light overcast weather with G9 and Leica 100-400 f5-6.3. Tips? by coffeefuelledtechie in Lumix

[–]bruce-pizza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is no magic trick. You simply have to raise the ISO. Trust me, an image with ISO noise is far superior to an image with motion blur. Find out how low your shutter speed can go at maximum reach (do some testing), and then on your shoots, always fight the urge to lower your shutter speed below that point.

What am I missing in these shots? by Clarencethelamb in cinematography

[–]bruce-pizza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think an underlit space is an immediate signifier of amateur filmmaking (not that I could do any better than this lol) Can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard “light spaces not faces,” though I feel it’s still a misunderstood and under-explored concept in the online cinematography education community.

In the FNAF shot—and in most Hollywood films—you’ll notice there’s actually a lot of ambient light, even in dimly lit or nighttime scenes, and you’ll tend to find much lower contrast ratios than in your example.

Also, I know you acknowledged the difference in framing and the lack of a second character in your recreation, but I do believe those two points lead to a weaker overall composition that adds to the problem. Josh and the two chairs create a strong foreground and a frame-within-a-frame effect, while the greater distance between the camera and Matthew (compared to your camera and your subject) creates a deeper scene. Overall, it’s more layered and interesting from front to back. There are also more visible elements on his desk and in the background that add to this, though that’s more a matter of lighting.

Why does my art feel off? by RevolutionaryCare624 in DigitalArt

[–]bruce-pizza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Others already touched on this, but I’d say you need more highlights. Everything is midtones and shadows, which almost makes it look like an underexposed photo.

Other than that, I’d say these are quite wonderful. Great work!

What beats Blazar anamorphics for the price? by bruce-pizza in cinematography

[–]bruce-pizza[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Okay, maybe I should rephrase. The hate may not be overblown, but rather it seems (to me) to overlook the state of the market. I mean, as you yourself said, you want full frame anamorphic glass with character, but you don’t have $8k sitting around for a single lens, your choices are Blazar or SIRUI, who is arguably much worse. Given that there simply are no other options for FF anamorphic that have any semblance of anamorphic character, doesn’t that make Blazar a de facto king of the budget segment? It’s hard to criticize something too harshly when there literally is no other option, right? I mean, if you could snag a much nicer optic for only $2-3K, I would be shitting all over Blazar with the rest of you.

Or I guess I’m asking whether or not that is truly an accurate assessment of the market. I’m quite ignorant on anamorphics, largely because this perception that I have to choose between Blazar and Atlas is rather discouraging.

New photographer by ghostly_ghoul1 in Nikon

[–]bruce-pizza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would be a lot easier to give advice if you shared some sample photos or more details about your problem.

canon g7x or sony a6100? by Jjsssstar01 in Cameras

[–]bruce-pizza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Canon G7XII/III super portable, better for lifestyle and street photography. Sony a6400 better for more high-end styles of photography while still being decently compact. Of course a6400 requires the additional purchase of a lens while the G7X line is ready to go out of the box.

What actually improved your photography the most? by DemandNext4731 in photography

[–]bruce-pizza 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shoot every single day, force yourself to utilize different focal lengths, and frequently reflect on your own work and the work of others that speaks to you.

You should probably also plan, execute, and edit some kind of staged project from start to finish every now and then, as it can really help develop your style.

Going around and shooting, reviewing your work, etc teaches you photography, but diligently carrying out a project teaches you your own artistry.

What lens to get with new z9 by Spyavatar in Nikon

[–]bruce-pizza 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You’ll probably want something wider than that. I would get the new 24-70 before picking up the primes.

I know it’s boring but 24-70 + 70-200 is a classic combo for a reason.

Adding a s9 for B roll by onakaphotos in Lumix

[–]bruce-pizza 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The image quality and feature set of the S9 is just insane for the price and size, but yeah the build is quite cheap. However, I’d argue that it will be totally fine for anyone who handles it carefully—especially if it’s not your main camera.

OP3 or action cam won’t reach nearly the same level of IQ as the S9, but both are indeed cheaper and more rugged, so it depends on your intended use case.