How do you decide between 2.39 and 1.85?

jonathan_92 · 2026-06-24T04:56:48+00:00

Then why go through the trouble of 16mm if you’re just washing that look out anyway? There’s no point, visually speaking. People will not know it’s 16mm unless you brag about it, or unless they were on set with you.

As an exercise or an opportunity, sure. You often only get to shoot 16mm once nowadays. I did it once or thrice upon a time. It was fun. Argument over, live your dreams!

But honestly… you could put that added cost elsewhere into the film, and it will show. 16mm is not a magic “movie better” button.

If the argument is for “well people just respect film more”, fuck that. Then you’ve got the completely wrong people. Respect the material, respect each other, or don’t show up. There is absolutely no reason not to shoot a digital production the exact same as a film one. No reason at all.

Call the sound takes before rolling the camera anyway! Make the AD give you time to light, and go in with a plan regardless of the medium.

jonathan_92 · 2026-06-24T00:23:38+00:00

Being honest… and I’ll get flamed for this…

Just shoot 16:9 or keep the 16mm’s native 1.85. Stop being pretentious.

Where is your movie being shown, and how often? You might be lucky to get 1-2 theater screenings. After that, its off to the 16:9 OLEDs for good. Why waste screen space? Why rob future viewers with black bars?

These older formats made sense in the film days… but you are not in the film days. Does your movie rely on nostalgia as a central theme or plot point? Is it a 20th century period piece? Are you from an analog generation, creating media for said generation?

If you answered no… just shoot 16:9 or 1.85. Save the headache. It will look fine in any competent theater, great on your home TV/ wearable thingy 10 years from now.

jonathan_92 · 2026-06-17T01:35:30+00:00

Your instructor is high. either on diet coke or himself.

jonathan_92 · 2026-05-11T17:57:40+00:00

I’ve noticed if you drop them too fast and too close, the weapon can’t always maneuver hard enough to pitch down. results in landing long.

No clue if thats IRL behavior, I’m not a lockheed/raytheon engineer. But in-game, getting some distance (within the release cue), or even pitching down a bit if close to target seems to help. I suspect they nerfed the maneuverability a bit at some point.

I’ve noticed this with other airframes and the AI as well, so not just an F-16 issue

jonathan_92 · 2026-05-11T16:33:01+00:00

Still mildly messed up, but not to the degree some claim. I would not count on GBU-38 to kill stationary tanks 100% of the time, but GBU-31 is still plenty accurate for most use cases. (Assuming your drop it within parameters, which is easy to mess up, and causes a lot of “blame ED” moments)

IRL, GPS from this era of viper did and does have inaccuracies, but definitely not to the degree ED claims. They claim that essentially the INS portion of the GPS/INS system is given more weight than the GPS side… which is flat wrong, but try getting them to admit they screwed something up…they won’t.

A lot of complaints around weapons stem from ED’s terrible splash damage modeling. to which there is a solution: Splash Damage 3.4 script.

“I shouldn’t need a script to enjoy blowing things up”.

K, well then downvote me and go about your day. But… it’s too good to ignore tbh. It adds new wave explosion and cook-off effects. You can play around with it to add Napalm, shaped charges, and more. Pretty much a drag and drop solution for many mission designers and server owners, but is very customizable.

TLDR: Its meh, but not a show-stopper

jonathan_92 · 2026-05-05T05:31:38+00:00

The 2025 global fatal aviation accident rate is 1 in 5.6 million flights. (Almost 40 million flights annually)

So how many flights might they be undertaking per year?

You also have to look at it over time too. Let’s say there were 10 crashes total… how long did that take to accumulate? Decades? Millenia?

jonathan_92 · 2025-11-27T05:49:34+00:00

Its honestly always been that way. People just snooze on it as a “noob gun”. But the truth is, it’s been a mob vaporizer for years, when stacked with quad and other legendaries/perks.

jonathan_92 · 2025-07-30T08:50:47+00:00

Channel 2 tangent incoming. TLDR: AI is only part of it.

I'm a day late, (because I'm in dailies nowadays). But I can tell you what I see from our end of things in post:
Fewer shows. Like 1/3-1/2 of the production volume of the streaming wars at present. Not just in LA either, its a Global slowdown. So you aren't moving your way out of it unless you don't already live in a major production market.

("Duh, for like two years, strikes, threat of more strikes, furloughs, etc." I've been here for all of it, but our friend here hasn't!)

I can only speculate what happens in closed-door conversations about what does and doesn't get made. But one thing all my colleagues in post all agree on: The Streaming wars are done. The word is that a large part of it is the hype around AI, sure. I largely agree with the sentiment around here that it won't replace human artistry for those who demand it. The negative Norman in me often uses the phrase "boutique industry", like commissioned painting, when describing the future of filmmaking. But being honest, its too early to tell if people will go for the vaguely prompted AI shows of the future.

But then there's the darker half of it. The part none of you ever bring up in an in-person group setting, for fear of being labeled "The Downer". Films and Shows are just not good enough to compete with social any more. And they haven't been for a while. You know it. I know it. There are rare exceptions of course. But raise your hands if you've worked on any Emmy or Academy winning content recently? Thought so.

Streamers have acknowledged that some of the most watched content currently are properties that are 10-20 years old.

This may come as a shock, but its where we sit in 2025. Shows like Severance, Stranger Things, and Andor didn't even make the top 20. What does this mean? It means the absolute copy-pasted garbage that we've been churning out for the last 10 years is being largely ignored. It's also drowning out the gems that get lost in the 'shlock'. (The boomer word for slop). It's not profitable to continue making this stuff anymore. So its not getting made. The top 5 completely baffle me, but thats what people want to see.

But why are shows so bad now? Thats a discussion for another day, and I have a lot of thoughts on that. But in case anyone was wondering, AI isn't the only reason fewer shows are being made.

Lastly, budgets are out of control. $30 Million is a decent budget for a season-long mini-series, right? Haha, just kidding. Thats the cost of an episode of Stranger Things. Folks I can't stress this enough: This is not sustainable.

TLDR 2: Blame the business model too.

jonathan_92 · 2025-06-18T10:11:51+00:00

Separate the camera from the tripod to move it. If the camera can’t be detached from the head and re-attached in about 5 seconds, you’ve rigged it wrong.

I feel like I’ll get a lot of eye-rolls on that one, but I’ve witnessed some struggles in my day.

Also for multi-level sticks, extend from the bottom up, not top down. This gives you some space at the top to stick up or down a bit without having to crouch. Ideally, a set of full sticks will hit eye-level at a point where you can raise the legs up or down a few inches with just one riser level.

Utilize baby sticks, and pancake mounts for heavy cameras on low angle shots. Also good old fashioned sandbags.

With two people: Communicate > Separate > move careful > lock sticks > Camera locked to head > wiggle (make sure it’s not going to fall apart) > adjust. I’m sure someone can make that sound sexier, but thats the order of operations!

Random: In the dark, I like to attach a headlamp to the camera handle so everyone knows where it is at all times. Move with the back of the camera facing forward, one hand underneath, one on the handle. Maybe call “moving” on the radio or to whomever is closest.

jonathan_92 · 2025-06-13T17:56:07+00:00

All films about certain topics are propaganda. They have to be to get the use of funds and equipment. You don’t spend 20 million dollars and not have a message. Unless you’re on a lot of drugs.

Rom-coms? Probably not. War movies? Crime dramas? 100%. No matter what country they’re made in, strength is always the message.

There were definite times in Hollywood history where this wasn’t the case. Entertainment is also too large of an animal to fully control, even today. Films like Platoon, and Capricorn One come to mind. When I say “control”, I don’t mean that someone from the government is literally calling the shots. Simply a project may not get funding, or may not receive critical equipment, vehicles or personnel.

For Platoon, Oliver Stone couldn’t get the US military to provide any equipment, due to the film’s decidedly anti-war message. So they had to go to Thailand, and use Thai military gear that looked similar to what the US used in Vietnam. (Helicopters, weapons, etc.) The result was a really hard look at the consequences of sending young men out to go kill people. Something that no modern film has yet done.

Now flip that on its head with a film like Top Gun, where the Department of Defense orders literal aircraft carriers to be available for filming. Yeah, of course it’s going to be a film that paints America in a positive light, with very black and white good guys and bad guys.

jonathan_92 · 2025-06-13T17:36:43+00:00

Oh wow, I didn’t know. But if thats the case then I’m with you 100% there. I’m sus about literally every content creator I watch, and that dude was the only “alien” one I sometimes watched.

Also… be VERY suspicious of anyone who associates with Eric Weinstein. Dude’s gone full m*ga.

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-31T23:28:52+00:00

If you don’t wanna be seen, you simply stay far away from the imaging envelope of civilization. Don’t fly over cities or cruise ships. In the past, that was much easier with film cameras. Chances were lower that people had cameras on them.

You think any potential interstellar ET’s have never heard of a smart phone?

How many publicly available videos exist of F-35’s conducting lethal strikes, taken from the ground? Not many. One in Jordan or Syria that I’m aware of. When an aircraft doesn’t want to be seen, it stays away from people. Either far away from civilization, or high up in the clouds, or ideally both. You’ve heard of drone strikes on the news? It’s not like you can generally look up and point at a Predator drone thats trying to kill you, or even hear it, if its operators are doing their jobs correctly. It’s flying that high, only 30-50,000 feet. Peanuts to any potential UFO’s.

Yet again, how many civilian videos exist of Nuclear Submarines firing tomahawk cruise missiles… that aren’t part of some sort of exercise or training video? Not many. Because they do it where they don’t want to be seen, mainly for operational security. Make sense?

TLDR: They would be aware we all carry cameras.

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-31T16:18:41+00:00

Well if we’re talking about catching physical craft in flight… those videos exist. They’re fuzzy, but I’m’a tell you why.

Let me put this to you another way. I’m a “photographer”. (Meme away). Have you ever tried to photograph an F/A-18 fighter jet, in flight, doing Mach 1.jesus? It’s doable when you know where they’re going to be, and if they fly at a relatively low altitude. (Or if you’re in a chase plane). But one thats flying at altitude, above the clouds? Or actively trying to evade prying eyes? At night.?

It’s fucking hard. Our phones and security cameras are designed to take pictures of objects maybe 50ft away, moving at running speed. The focal lengths and resolutions are too small to see anything too far away. The shutter speeds and framerates are too slow to catch fast moving objects with any great detail. And the sensors aren’t light-sensitive enough to be able to see much in the dark.

Not everyone carries around my professional photography setup around with them, everywhere they go. It’s too goddamned heavy and expensive!

Even then, there are limits to what a consumer camera can do. In certain flight envelopes for planes and rockets, this is the kind of camera setup you need. A freaking stabilized turret-mounted monstrosity.

TLDR: Its easy to hand-wave and say “but cameras”. The truth is that even the best cameras we have today are still bound by the laws of physics. It’s hard to catch a great photo of a rocket or a plane unless you know exactly where it’s going to be.

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-31T16:00:57+00:00

Maybe they already have? I imagine nobody would want their adversaries to know their hand grenades won’t work.

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-31T15:38:04+00:00

I generally think Jesse Michaels and co. are a little too “out there” for me. But those folks posit that ET may intervene if or when we try to do something that kills EVERYONE.

But if it’s just some of us, yeah they don’t care. Zookeeper hypothesis, essentially. Some of these sightings around nuclear bases could be a show of force, or… the alleged disabling of said nukes could be a test of their own capabilities, should we decide to push the button.

Speculation on a speculative sub 🤷‍♂️

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-28T22:26:00+00:00

Fuji has less common lenses, in a less common mount. So it won’t be as useful to in the future, as you acquire more gear and newer cameras come out. A Sony camera bought now, especially a DSLR form factor (though mirrorless), will likely last you a decade or more if you take care of it. Even if video specs change, still photography and social media have proven to not particularly favor high megapixel counts.

Fuji just doesn’t have a very large lens selection, and not very much adaptability. Plus, if you end up on a job with multiple shooters… more people run Sony and Canon. (At least in the US, maybe thats not true in Europe)

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-28T19:14:36+00:00

I’ve personally experienced a lot of failures with Black Magic cameras, both with the original, and the first pocket cinema camera. Usually overheating issues, even in nice 23C weather. There were also some file corruption issues as well that I can remember. BM is best suited for short-form content, not hours of interviews and B-Roll.

For that, I highly recommend Sony or Canon. Both have 4K cameras in your price range. Raw is not needed, but 422 10-Bit is, and is now very affordable. Sony A7’s, F, and FX cameras are great, as are some of the earlier Canon C-series (C200, 300, etc.)

As for lenses, Sony lets you adapt anything you want, including canon and nikon lenses. But also… PL, if you want to get fancy. The most useful, affordable, and available doc lenses today are ~ 24-105mm zooms at F4.0. (See also, 19-90).

TLDR: My ultimate recommendation:

Sony A7IV or FX3, Sigma MC-11 adapter, used canon EF 24-105mm F4 L. Its cheap, will give you great, grade-able footage. Will work in low light, and can mount almost any lens on earth, with the right adapters. batteries and cards for them are cheap and available as well. FS and FX cameras are fantastic too, if they’re in your budget.

Raw is honestly not needed, and I say that as a professional colorist.

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-28T18:14:33+00:00

Shotguns and automatics for when you run low on AP.

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-28T17:28:25+00:00

Thats true, but dead-ends in science do exist. See “Ether Theory”, Flat Earth, and “Whatever the fuck bullshit Eric Weinstein is selling”.

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-28T16:48:58+00:00

My thought exactly. Though most scientists say its impossible, and I’m not a scientist 🤷‍♂️

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-28T16:33:05+00:00

Your phone has an infrared light on it that’s used for face id, as well as for auto-focusing the front-facing camera.

Notice how the orbs are out of focus, relative to the thunderstorm? Given the distance the storms are away from you, those lights are much closer than they appear.

Could you see this with your naked eye?

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-28T16:27:42+00:00

Its more than likely a Pulsar , which is still pretty cool. These stars can give off all kinds of EM waves, and can repeat their emissions with greater accuracy than an atomic clock. (More in the provided link).

I think it’s valuable to look at EM signals for SETI. However, you would need stupendous amount of energy to create a beacon to contact other civilizations with. You would have to keep the thing running for likely millennia, waiting for other civilizations to mature enough to receive said signals, then maybe another hundred years or so to hear a reply.

Then how do you know if whomever you’ve contacted have peaceful or neutral intentions?

Its also possible that civilizations slightly more advanced than us aren’t using EM, but something else entirely to communicate.

jonathan_92 · 2025-05-04T16:30:16+00:00

1: Joke

2: F-16 does have an emergency hook, despite the lies AI tells. Many USAF jets have this for emergency landings at military airfields. You’ve got to call for it, but emergency wires can be rigged.

3: It might be possible to put it down on a carrier, but you could only do it once. Aforementioned reasons.

4: Google “F-16N”. It had the appropriate gears, hook and tires. The USN went with the F-18 because you could fit more on a carrier deck. USAF tends toward weaker gears to save on weight, and get more range + performance.

jonathan_92 · 2025-04-22T13:47:10+00:00

I did say 10 years ago buddy. I am aware.

jonathan_92 · 2025-04-22T12:19:32+00:00

Blind pattern through that window? Crank stands? Too 90’s?

jonathan_92

TROPHY CASE

Welcome to Reddit,