Oliver Daniel

The format you choose is a creative choice to tell the story more suitably and effectively. We are lucky to have such choices. You pick your own standard and off you go! Onto topic.... it's a discussion of new 4k cameras from Sony. I've been thinking, it's excellent that these cameras have 4k. General 4k footage looks ridiculous on a 4k monitor. A lot of the consumer 4k camera footage looks "hyper real", so sharp it's actually very distracting. But I also remember HD being very distracting at first. The Sony FS7 (in my opinion) is the "best" camera on the market. (considering price, features and results). These new cameras will make excellent B & C cameras to that. On many shoots an excellent A camera. I like Sony as they give me the features I need. I prefer Canon's imagery but the features are lost in time. Who cares anyway?

I do think most are being over-critical of this short. The filming quality was pretty good (yes a bit under lit at times, not much dimension) and the story should of been 3 minutes long and a lot zippier. But, it did prove to me that the NX1 is a more than capable tool for professional video - the DP got close to achieving a cinematic look. Much better effort than those absolutely terrible Sony A7R, RX videos. Weird thing is, I thought the short looked best at 720p on Youtube. Sometimes 4k on a 4k monitor looks so ridiculously crisp that it's very distracting!

I've been completely ignoring camera based news for a couple of months, and in that time period I've whipped out the GH3 a few times and still been amazed at the resolution. I even cut it with F55 footage (the stills leave a lot to be desired though!). Regardless, I've recently been asked to film a large series of band interviews, live gigs, lounge sessions, photo sessions and other music material to be delivered in 4k. So I must admit these announcements caught my eye as I have to build a reliable, multi-cam based 4k setup. These Sony's seem ideal. This technological race is near impossible to keep up with though - it's when you let it distract you away from true creativity that it becomes a real issue.

Someone crashed the DJI Inspire 1 on yesterdays shoot. My response wasn't "Is it broken?", it was "Did you get the shot?" Honestly, my gear gets bashed to bits, literally. My gear is secondary to my vision, and I'll brutalise the gear to accomplish the best vision possible.

I'm always flabbergasted at the amount of cameras he buys, is it for his own use or just for reviews on this site? Must be difficult to keep up and stay focused, all these cameras/reviews/books/news reports etc. This applies to everybody - full-on camera nerdy-ness completely drains the life out of you and any creativity you have left in you. For the past 2 months I've almost completely ignored camera/gadgety nerdy stuff and focused on creativity entirely. Videos have much improved, and because of this, better opportunities have cropped up. Every filmmaker gets burnt out. I get burnt out twice a year. You just have to stay focused to keep well and not to overwhelm yourself with unnecessary clutter. Maybe Mr. Reid is decluttering, who knows. Rest is a good sign of gaining some sanity

​ Kung Fury said something to me. It said "tank you", when Kung Fury dropped a tank on someones head.

​ That's the issue right there, subjectivity. Before I watched Kung Fury, I wasn't expecting a film where he has something profound to say about the world. I don't think anybody should be. I watched the film because I wanted to see a Kung Fu cop beat people up, shoot cars into the air, pick up a tank, throw it on someone and kill lots of Nazi's. All in a different way than I'm used to. I also watched Ex Machina two days ago and quite enjoyed it. Although it said all the usual intriguing stuff regarding the responsibility of creating powerful A.I, I found it less entertaining than Kung Fury. Sometimes it doesn't matter how much a film wants to say, sometimes I don't really care. Sometimes I'd rather see a cobra bitten superhuman stand on a car in mid-air and shoot idiots in the head.

​ I mean this in the nicest way possible, but I don't think you "get" Kung Fury. To compare it to the Epic/Disaster/Date movies is way off the mark. (profit-only junk). Kung Fury is a celebration of 80's action movies, music and video game culture. All blended into one. While it makes a parody of it all - it's not done in a crude and negative way like these Hollywood parodies normally do. The filmmaker clearly loves what inspired the film, and you can tell how much fun he must of had making this film. he put himself into it (literally) and you can tell. There is a lot of heart hidden beneath the layers of composites. Maybe my opinion is different than yours as I have the same interests as David Sandberg. I can relate to all the cliches, the over-the-top stunts, the directing style, the one-liner intoxicated script.... all of it. I love it when we can be ridiculous and get away with it. So many filmmakers "play it safe" but this guy just goes for it, all guns blazing, doesn't care what anyone thinks. But unlike Sucker Punch, it's intricately inspired and oozes character. While I don't expect everyone to like this film, it's unfortunate to see on a filmmaking forum that some people can't appreciate the skills and effort of the filmmaker - regardless of personal taste.

Wow, there are really a lot of negative comments about Kung Fury in this thread. Personally, I thought it was absolutely awesome. The style, the one-liners, the creative compositions and the confidence to make something this ridiculous actually good is a winner to me. This filmmaker had a lot of fun making this, is clearly very inspired and doesn't care how dumb people think his film is. (Because it's actually very clever). Maybe I love it because I can relate to it. In uni, I loved watching "so bad they are brilliant" films like Ninja Terminator. So when I see Kung Fury taking that to the level of awesome, I understand it completely.

A massive price drop for a camera that has just started shipping......cool! I still think the URSA Mini is the better option though. From what it seems... better ergonomics, better sensor (4.6k one), better dynamic range, better usability (from seeing previews), sensor switchable, internal RAW, better frame rate options, 1080p included OLED screen, fantastic affordable add-ons, massive Blackmagic community and support, will work out cheaper overall = much much better value. I think filmmakers will only go for the AJA if it comes down to the "mojo"....anything else, the URSA Mini seems to be the much better creative tool. Gotta love Blackmagic. p.s the URSA Mini looks more stylish too.

I loved it too. It was hilarious, I couldn't stop spitting my sides over the big truck with the drummers on the back and the guitarist on the front. It was like a 2 hour music video really. A very simple plot but absolute carnage all the way through.

They need to make an EF - E mount adapter now.

​ The kind of work I need it for needs super-wide angles. Not essential, but bloody useful! I've decided on the Sigmas for now anyway. For artistic stuff, I love the look of the "wide angle close up". For instance, the SLR magic 12mm on MFT gives a spellbinding look as you can focus so close to the object and have this wide angle shallow DOF. Know of any nice lenses on full frame like this?

​ I'm having a hard time buying clinical lenses. I need soul and character. The work I need them for has no soul or character. Trouble is... I'm going to be using a Sony A7S, but these lenses also need to go on Super35. Balancing the two is a little tricky.

​ I agree. It's a bit like getting lost on Wikipedia - one minute your searching for chromatic aberration and somehow you end up on the history of demonology.

​Absolutely. But in the conditions this was a student screening, and expectations are not on a professional level at all. It wasn't a sob story - this guy who can barely do or say anything at all made a film. I loved how random it was. Although it was terrible - I enjoyed it. Anyway, this topic is going off on a weird tangent... I have no idea how to get it back on topic. I think I'm all motion cadenced out!

​ Maybe I had a bad one. It was a hideous piece of glass. I'll try again. Is there any difference with the cine version (besides gears etc)? It's rather pricey! Nikon 14-24mm not an option after doing some research. 17mm is usually my ideal focal length on APS-C and 24mm on FF. Just love the look of truly epic wide compositions, especially for band shoots!

I have never actually owned more than one camera at any time (besides GoPro and smartphone). In most cases, buying numerous bodies is a waste of money. Many people have a problem. The reason why I only own one camera is because it's enough. I'm still able to run my business and attract clients, because I know my camera inside out and when needed, just rent the others. Maybe as progress is made this will change. You are better off investing in lighting - this is truly the most important area of the craft, and technically, the most creative.

Not considered anything yet. I know the hood is fixed and have no idea yet whether there is an ND solution. That could be a deal breaker.

Has anybody tried the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8? I'm considering this with the 28-70mm as an option too.

​At university I did a filmmaking course. It was a crap course, but full of nice people. On one particular piece we had to base a film on one of our favourite poems. We had a disabled student on our course - he was wheelchair bound and couldn't say a single sentence that made any remote sense, but he submitted a film and everyone watched. His film was handycam footage of some of the female students in his halls of residence drinking in the kitchen and chatting before a night on the town. Over the top of the footage he recorded a voiceover with his care worker, who was reading one of Roald Dahl's Revolting Rhymes (Hood and the Wolf). And that was it. The combination was completely random and didn't match at all. The filming quality was technically awful. The sound was too loud and distorted. Regardless, I thought it was brilliant. The beauty I saw in his film was that he actually made one. He got out any old camera, put it together and showed it to everyone on a big screen. Maybe it didn't make sense to us - but it may of made sense to him. Everyone was talking about it. Such the beauty of subjectiveness. This film didn't have pleasing motion cadence. But it definitely pleased my heart. He succeeded.

​ Yep, never liked the Tokina really. Wasn't happy with it when I used it. It felt broken because it was so soft. Very wide angles are very important to my work, so I'll have a look around at some options.

Thanks for this feedback. I am a vintage lens guy at heart, I barely use modern lenses. But now I've got reasons to grab some. I've used the Tokina 11-16mm before and I thought it was really soft. It was like the image is out of focus. Also isn't this lens only APS-C? I know the Sigma 18-35mm is, but i can put up with that.

I'm looking to buy some Sigma ART lenses to shoot on Super 35 sensors (and sometimes full frame) for my shoots that need a sharp, clinical look with DOF advantage. Shooting handheld, on gimbals, sliders. Cameras Sony FS7, URSA Mini (soon), A7S, GH4. Would like to use them as stills lenses too - probs on a cheaper Nikon for laughs and giggles. Got my eye on the Sigma 18-35mm and 50mm ART in Nikon mount. Just stratching my head for the very wide angles and 85mm end. Anyone have any experience with these lenses and other lenses you use with them? I'm a bit of a vintage glass kinda guy but would like some more up to date stuff! Thanks.

​ Many lovely shots in this. I think exactly the same as you about Panasonic lenses. When considering the subject matter of this thread, they are bloody awful. Extremely clinical, soulless and way too sharp. Very electronic looking. I was shooting on the F55 again today. Global shutter. Never used a global shutter before. Saw the difference on some vehicle shots, the motion was looking nice and smooth. What differences does everybody think a global shutter gives to motion, besides no jello/smooth pans etc?