QuickHitRecord

Thanks for turning me on to this guy. I just listened to a great podcast with him and his crew on NFS. He embodies a filmmaking philosophy that I definitely strive for.

Yeah, @mercer's screen grabs look great. It's some of the best looking stuff that we've seen around these boards; there's nothing lacking there! I continue to experiment with ML on the EOS-M. The temptation of using c-mount lenses in 1:1 crop is too great. That is a fun little camera and I am totally enamored with the look that I can easily achieve. Would I ever choose it for my own passion project? Absolutely. Someone else's passion project? Only if they understood the limitations and risks. That being said, for the right short or music video, I would totally pitch it as an option if the c-mount aesthetic could add something.

I have to agree with this. 5Diii raw was revolutionary at the time but it does not stack up against modern cameras. I did a comparison about a year ago with my current cameras and it displayed so much striated and blocky magenta noise in the shadows that I can't imagine reaching for it for video ever again. I still takes wonderful photos though. Something I've been pondering lately is usability. I just wrapped a fast-paced short film shoot at a local bar using two C70s and a set of Sirui Jupiter anamorphics. I chose those cameras despite owning two older Reds. The C70s are not cameras that have much appeal to the cinema purist side of me, but I'm glad that I did choose them because I don't think we would have made it through our shot list if I'd been using a camera that was even slightly slower. I still think that my ancient R1MX produces an image that just puts me in a light trance and pulls me into the film more than any other digital camera that I know of. But it's hard to imagine a film that would be the right fit for that camera, so I think that it's days with me may be numbered. So, yeah, unless I was working with larger crews and bigger budgets, I guess my answer to the original question would be the Canon C70. It may be the Honda Civic of cinema cameras, but it will get you where you need to go, without adding additional stress.

I personally think that these are hard to beat. I own four of them. I came from running two 575w HMIs but these are brighter, quieter, and more affordable. There's no ballast or extra cabling, which for me is a plus. They also have a dedicated remote control available so you don't have to rely on an app. The only "drawback" is that they can't be powered by v-mounts, but I have other lights that can be. I'm very intrigued by the design of the new Molus G300 because I think I could fit two or maybe even three into a single case. But there are several ways in which the Nanlites still beat them.

Actually, that 12-36mm lens I mentioned earlier seems like it might fit the bill, if you are willing to make some modifications. I posted a question about it on another message board and a member named Boris Simović actually had one. He shared these photos (attached), taken with his E-M1 Mark II. To get the lens to work with his MFT body, he removed the rear plate and just screwed on an MFT adapter in its place. It won't focus to infinity at the longer focal lengths yet, but he's going to see if he can work with the adapter a little more to make it work. He says it's somewhat heavy and feels like it needs more lubricant, but I think that the images look very promising. It's available as the FOCtek C-M1236IR in the US for around $300, or $160 on AliExpress (without coupons applied). I am seriously struggling to keep myself from picking up a copy. But maybe you would be interested?

There are some pretty long threads of things that other users have tried in the EOS-M Facebook group. Maybe something in there will bring your little camera back to life? These look great! I have always enjoyed the look of the Takumar lenses. What is your film about?

I have a similar unbranded lens that's f1.6. With the 2.5K crop mode, it's almost perfectly usable throughout the range. It's a fun little lens, and very versatile. The only downsides are the rotating filter threads, slight vignette at certain focal lengths, the zooming mechanisms/runners showing up in bokeh when shooting wide open, and spikey party-favor bokeh when closed down. So, there are some compromises. I was looking around the ZLKC storefront on AliExpress and there are lots of neat 1.1" c-mount lenses on offer. I would imagine that they would cover S16, but I can't find any reviews. Have you installed Crop Mood yet? The M becomes a whole new camera. Ah, yes. I remember that mod. It was one of my favorite threads on this site. Once you start getting into 1/2" lenses and smaller, it really is uncharted territory. Too bad there aren't many interchangeable lens cameras that can work with them.

That seems quite bizarre! Which lens is this? I can't find a single review online, so it's anyone's guess what it would be like to actually use.

I've been looking for pretty much the same thing and I think that this might be the answer IF it can fit into a c-mount adapter, thought the base of this lens looks flat and too large. It might have to be shaved down.

Haha. The line! I know. It's so hard to stay on the right side. I'll admit that I've slipped a little and in a moment of weakness, I purchased a $50 point-and-shoot as an every day carry (big mistake; I was quickly reminded that I just can't get excited about cameras without a substantial grip). But other than that, I've been very disciplined these past four months. My interest in c-mount lenses revolves around the EOS-M. I enjoy the combination of 16mm glass with this little camera in 1:1 crop. There is an aesthetic there that is more interesting to me than anything I've been able to get from my S35 and FF cameras. My theory is that sampling from a smaller piece of the sensor in combination with tiny glass throws out enough detail and in turn, brings some mystery/intrigue/engagement to the footage that is missing from most digital S35+ footage. And this is coming from someone who ignored c-mount lenses until 3-4 years ago; I didn't see the point. Before my self-imposed embargo, I decided to put together the most economical raw-shooting camera package that I could possibly think of. I got there with the M and three Cosmicar c-mount lenses (I also have a set of three Kern Switars, but they were significantly more expensive). Working with such a lightweight, low-cost kit and yet fully functional kit is freeing. What I'm missing (though, not really) is an inexpensive zoom lens that can go wider than 15mm, but most have that ugly track that I can't get past. However, the Meteor is an intriguing lens. And they are still quite affordable. I think I can say that rigged up, the EOS-M/c-mount combo makes me want to get out there and shoot more than any of the other 30+ cameras I've owned (other than maybe my beloved FZ47). It's way more fun than any other cine cameras that I can think of. If I get a couple of nice shots with it, or I am able to crop in a little further in-camera to eliminate some vignetting on an otherwise overlooked lens, I feel like I'm breaking the rules. It offers just the right amount of limitation, which I find to be inspiring.

Can anyone recommend any non-cinema c-mount zooms without the little dips caused by the internal runners when wide open? So far, I've only heard of two: Canon V10X15 15-150 f2.8 Cosmicar 22.5-90 f1.5 I'm still trying to make this a "no gear year", but that doesn't mean I can't look!

Does the motion from Fujifilm cameras look really off to anyone else? It's so disappointing to me. The colors that those cameras produce can be so nice. I've never used one before and I wonder if it could be improved by shooting at 1/40.

For years I was certain the global shutter was directly related to motion cadence, but I'm not so sure anymore. Most of the cameras that I like the motion from most have rolling shutters. I've shot with the Komodo and owned the Blackmagic Production Camera for a while. I was not blown away by either. And I did a lot of research into the Magic Motion mount for the DSMC1 cameras, and actually thought that the global shutter looked worse on those cameras than footage from cameras without it.

I thought about starting a new thread, but there is already so much theory packed into this old discussion that I decided to revive it and see if the last nine years of camera releases might add to the discussion -- which always seems to bring up some high emotions (for those of you who feel an eye roll coming on, feel free to write me off as not knowing what I am talking about and move along). I'm coming at it from a deeply subjective standpoint. I always try to find wide shots with people walking in them as my baseline. More cameras than not look "off" to me. With that out of the way, which cameras produce your favorite 24p motion in 2024? My favorites are all older cameras: Motion Picture Film - The original and best. It pulls me in and almost puts me in a trance-like state. Red One MX - Honestly, the best digital motion I've seen. It looks better to me than any newer Red or frankly, anything from Arri. Ikonoskop A-Cam Dii and Digital Bolex D16 - Really nice. And some sleepers too: Canon EOS-M with Magic Lantern - It just looks right to me. Much better than my C70. Panasonic GH1 - Odd, I know. But yes. And it looks slightly better to me than the GH2.

It's the first test footage I've seen in a long time that made me think, "Well, that's different!". The colors feel a little overzealous, but there's something immersive about the this footage (and I own that Cosmicar lens). At least to me. And they dynamic range test on the bus is remarkable. If they launch a pre-order, I may have to break my "No Gear Year" and put myself on that list.

Octopus Cinema is pivoting to focus exclusively S16 cameras now. Check it out:

@bjohnAssuming that this happened to you fairly recently and it wasn't your post, I've read about the Kingston cards dying before on another forum.

500w RGB lights for $109 each? https://www.ebay.com/itm/335002908209?_trkparms=amclksrc%3DITM%26aid%3D777008 But then I read further down the listing and apparently it's only 100w for daylight or tungsten, and 50w with a color. All built into the same body as their $500w light (and it does say 500w in a few places within this listing)...

Thanks for your very thoughtful response to this thread, @kye. Your remarkable ability to distill and articulate is one of the reasons I still check this forum. I worked for a large corporation for eight years before freelancing, and I've "consulted" with dozens of other corporations since. What you've written above rings true. There are a lot of people hiding out under ill-defined roles and abstract goals who spend their days shopping online and watching YouTube. Their job, quite literally, is to create the illusion that they are accomplishing something. And yet, it's so hard to even be considered for one of those jobs. Something that I like about video work is that you always have something to show for it, and effort is evident. I think you are right about smaller organizations. If I make the switch, I'm more more interested in less pay for an organization that is actually trying to do good in the world than more pay for a company exists to increase wealth for the shareholders. Glad to hear that your sister is doing well in her new line of work. Do you know what her reasons for leaving were? And out of curiosity (and without knowing her role in the film world) have you ever collaborated on a film together? IT is for bigger brains than mine! It seems like you're really plugged into the film world in NZ. Are you seeing any noteworth trends? Do people tend to go into different careers at a certain age or life stage?

I'm not saying that I'm going to make the jump, but it seems like a good thought exercise after fifteen years in this field. Personally, I'm just getting tired of cranking out so many dull, formulaic videos. I still do try to inject some interest or personality into most of my client work, but too often it gets stripped out during the review process. Whether I am being paid or not, I will always make films. However, the idea of only making the films that I want to make is pretty appealing. To clarify, I'm not necessarily trying to get personalized advice here, just some general discussion. And if you've made the transition, I think that it would be especially insightful to hear about your experience. Though most of the HR bots that are going to screen out your application might not see it, I think that this job requires a lot of different skills that would translate into other roles such as storytelling, project management, communication, flexibility/adaptability, technical proficiency, problem-solving, attention to detail, client relations, collaboration, marketing knowledge, time management, and continuous learning. And if you're freelance, you've got to be a real self-starter. I've seen video people leave and go on to make a lot more money in the IT field (there's been some recent discussion here about this). Communications also seems like a natural fit, though I wonder about the viability of that career path given the proliferation of AI. Speaking of which, here are the roles that ChatGPT recommends looking into: And of these roles, here are the ones that it deems the most future proof in this AI age: So, what are your thoughts on this? Have you made the transition? Would you like to? Or if you haven't/won't, how are you planning to adapt?

Thanks largely to Andrew's original post, many people here already know that Shane Carruth shot 2013's excellent indie feature Upstream Color with a pair of hacked GH2s. At the time, aspiring filmmakers everywhere found inspiration that such a masterful film was created with such an accessible consumer camera. It still stands up today as a beautiful, challenging, thought-provoking film: I just happened across some behind the scenes photos on Reddit posted almost a decade after the film's release. I've always wondered about the technical particulars of how this film was made and even though what was posted is pretty low-res and deteriorated further with early Instagram filters, it does show some pretty bare-bones camera rigs and a lot of natural light. As I enter my forties and the dream of creating a meaningful narrative film in my lifetime seems to slip further and further out of reach, this is just the kind of inspirational kick in the pants that I needed. If 8-bit, 4:2:0 AVCHD from a Micro Four Thirds sensor was enough to create an immersive story like this in 2013, then the never-ending pursuit of marginally improved gear and software really is just a giant, capitalism-fueled distraction -- one that I know that I use to put off the very real possibility that when I buckle down to make something deeply personal, I might not have anything to say. But I also know that it will be my deepest regret if I never even try. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that my own thoughts and ideas aren't particularly novel or unique, so maybe others on this board will connect with this too.

What do you like about the NX500s so much? I've always been curious about the bitrate/low rolling shutter hack. Have you tried it? Don't make it sound too good though, there are recovering gear addicts in this thread!

The same thing is happening to me! All of these uncommon items that I haven't seen on eBay in years seem to be popping up right now. It's pretty uncanny. Oh well. Like you, I am still holding strong.

I remember your original post and this is still some of the most compelling footage that I have seen on this site. My working theory is that I think less resolution allows the audience to subconsciously fill in that detail in a way that makes sense to them and sum of their life experience. And the very act of this can make a video more interactive and engaging, kind of like reading a book. And one can argue that this active participation is nostalgic in itself, since a lot of us grew up in the era of film projections and standard definition video. To me, the same idea applies to keeping the monster in your horror film in the shadows until the last possible minute. It is always going to be scarier in the imagination. It's also why we gravitate towards keeping half of the face in shadow. It's been proven that humans find symmetrical faces more attractive and very few people actually have them. But if you don't show half of the face, the audience creates their own idea of a face and oftentimes that is going to be more appealing than the actor's real face. This is why I think that some people look great on camera, but not so much in-person; possibly because we never actually see their whole face in flat light, as is more common in the real world. Here's the same video from the original post, without any processing. To me, it evokes a very different feeling than the original:

You've been at this for even longer than I have. But I feel that the lines of "commercial" shoots have blurred a lot. I used to think the category of "Commercial" was reserved for high concept crewed shoots that were intended for broadcast. There are still definitely those that fall into that category. But I'm seeing a lot more single creators with no crew and a mirrorless camera shooting social media spots for some brands (of course, it's all professionally color-graded). I personally do a lot of product videos, usually as a crew of two plus a producer, and never with a storyboard. I've never felt comfortable calling them "Commercial", but lately it seems like I might be able to. They are, after all, designed to sell a product. Curious what your thoughts on it are.