fuzzynormal

Persig gets into this with his theory of quality in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Matinence. The idea, of which I'll poorly explain here, is that exceptional craft is not seen, but inherently felt, even by those ignorant of the skill set needed to accomplish it. This short film is not exceptional craft, but it was an initial attempt at something aiming in that direction. Full disclosure: I'm not good at motorcycle maintenance. But, honestly, we could watch 2 or 3 minutes of reels while doom scrolling and see younger more vibrant craft of video these days. But, yeah, "what do you want to build with that skill" becomes the important question.

Thanks so much for your feedback. I was especially intrigued by this line. We're very pleased you were able to stay interested in the film. We're screening this doc again today, locally. Hopefully more insight keeps coming our way.

Perhaps that's accidental as the nature of my client shooting back then demanded such practices. The other thing was that we wanted the piece to hold onto a timeless quality even though we knew it would be of its era. Therefore we really didn't want to do anything stylistic. A jump cut sequence was as far as we wanted to go editing-wise. Thanks for watching. Really appreciate your input.

Good advice. Thanks so much for offering your suggestion. The director, my wife, is aligned with your take here. She definitely wants to hone the focus and define the 'voice' of the film better.

tl/dr: Made a small and simple doc film years and years ago with my first 'hybrid' camera. The process was inspiring and changed my outlook about working with motion pictures: A bit of online chatter here about cameras that are older and it got me thinking because I recently posted a doc my wife and I are currently working on. It was made with recent camera gear and fancy new computers and software. Something old. Something new. Well, as a retrospect, here's a look at the very first film we attempted. This was in 2011. My entire career at that time had been broadcasting and corporate. Didactic stuff. That was my reality and vocational training. If making a film was compared being an architect designing a building, my education was basically akin to being an electrician. Installing wires and cables I could do -- and that was kind of it, y'know? So when we set out to shoot this 'Camino' flick, our assumption was that we were going to do what was typical for us: Subject-matter-experts-interviews, b-roll, maybe even having a presenter doing stand ups and narration. That type of thing. Interestingly, this upcoming shoot was immediately preceded by a corporate assignment in southern Spain. The experience of filming some pretty incredible scenery footage only to know that it was going to be handed off to my client who would hammer it into a dry travelogue video was disheartening. Also, a year before we had also made a standard travelogue video ourselves in Japan. We were underwhelmed by the results we created there too. My wife saw my frustration with all this and started asking "why". Why were we doing things a certain way. What exactly would we be offering the world with another video that was a parade of talking heads telling the viewer what to think/feel? No acceptable answers were readily available. So, the day before this journey we decided to ditch all the audio gear, the Sachtler tripod, and the HD video camera with multiple lenses. Into the backback went a used 5DII and a nikkor 50mm prime. That was it. Felt a bit naked, tbh. But that was the first day we set off into the world as filmmakers rather than as a cameraman or a broadcast ENG person. We wanted to make something completely impressionistic and opposite of what was typical for us. We'd only use 1 small cam, 1 small lens, a walking staff as a makeshift monopod. This epiphany came about not only from the conversation with my wife, but also the realization that a really simple camera rig was not only going to give me an opportunity to run and gun cinematically; but to do it better than with the extensive gak I normally carried around. Cinematic shooting was something that I never really felt the freedom to explore --until that moment. And so we went to make a humble unassuming little film. The simplicity became it's value. Less was more we reasoned. Create a vibe rather than an info dump. Our modest film might not seem like much, and there's so many mistakes I made first time out of the gate I still cringe at, but it changed our view about our careers. From there we started to be interested in what it took to be better storytellers. Could we actually do that? Really? All of this to say that perspective really matters. And that the gear we talk about here can actually offer new perspectives. But it was the attitude first and foremost that needed a shift. Cheers.

That stinks that it's misbehaving. Which video modes? I rented the OM1 last year and wasn't noticing anything weird. And, again, my lowly em10iii does fine. I did NOT use 60p C4k mode though on the rented OM1. What power is your reducer? Most are .7'ish, so you'd be around a 60mm equiv., but a difference of 5mm isn;t going to affect much.

FWIW, I recently did a post about the doc the wife and I are working on. Some of our production insights there. Examples are posted too, so you can judge if what we're talking about measures up to your standards. Not the first time we've done that either. Yeah, it's a gear site first and foremost, but other info floats around too.

Huh? Surely that can't be right? I use an EM10iii and can stabilize my old prime lenses as needed --and it does so quite well. It's a big reason why I bought it. Or are you writing in context to the 120 burst mode?

Yeah. Totally not depressing, that.

The soundimage.org guy has been posting here for over a decade! Lots of interesting and useful stuff there, btw.

The shots were so dense I literally couldn't get past it to concentrate on the story. Style over substance. Or, the style was most of the substance. Looked ridiculously good though, didn't it?

Might be a bit of survivor bias here. The older movies that were shot on film might seem to be of a nicer IQ standard, but those are the ones that are still acknowledged. As an dude that went to the local 1$ 'grindhouse' theater rather regularly as a kid, I assure you that the quality of the image for the forgettable films were often nothing remarkable. However, I will say that the darker, deeper, contrasty look that was in fashion among better cinematographers back then is something I miss. Less is more. Too much detail in a scene can be a detriment at times. All that dynamic range often is not needed. Spielberg's West Side Story looked remarkable and like shit simultaneously, imo.

FWIW, I have one. Got it used for $1,250 a year ago. Great IQ, but I just don't like using it for video. That cam's ergos fight me.

Thank you for taking the time to actually give the film a shot and devoting some of your time to it. It's actually a big ask to request someone's attention --and then have them do it; much less write out a critique. Believe me, it's super appreciated!

It's a work in progress, yes, so the feedback is appreciated. Your suggestions align with our thoughts as well, so the affirmation is encouraging. There were a few different storytelling tacts we considered. We ultimately decided to not deviate from their reality much and stay true. Our usual tendencies would have been to play up some of the challenges to heighten stakes, but their thing is actually rather modest and somewhat mellow, so (this edit for our locals anyway) is character study and a slow unfolding of their situation. We expect to ultimately make a short "TV" version where the tighter and conventional storytelling stuff is in play. So many different cameras were used simply because that's what we had on hand. Also, there was a perverse pleasure in knowing we were using a ridiculous mix of cameras and then trying to unify IQ in post. So much of what my wife shot was on an old Fuji XPro2. Which is kind of a really dumb thing to do if you know that camera. But oh well! I often used a Olympus EM10iii --with a 1970's 50mm on it. That's the camera that caught alot of the people shots. For the hawks, my severely banged up GH5 had a super cheap vintage Toyo 500mm lens and a 2x extender on it. That was the rig that caught the most bird footage. Rented some things along the way, but the timing of the rentals and nature didn't yield much. Having that old lens was the silliest thing ever for capturing clean nature shots, but there was a lot of fun in the challenge of trying to make it work. Manually trying to focus while panning at an effective 2000mm fov? That was difficult. I should have bought a real tripod, like a Sachtler, for trying to get birds in flight. Not doing that was a mistake. The Oly cam was the most doc friendly. Small, unobtrusive. Easy to use handheld kuz of the decent IS. Looked good most of the time. Trying to film on my Xiomi 12s Ultra was...meh. Got a few pretty shots on it, but missed so much while fiddling with the touch screen. No thanks. Not doing that anymore. Also, the phone's IS induces unwanted image jitter. Bleh. The phone camera can look really great. On par with the other cams in a way. Not a practical tool though. As for audio we just put 3 lav recorders on the main characters and let it rip. Typically 2 hours in the morning, 2 hours at night. x3 x60 days x2 years. No monitoring of the audio. We got what we got. Keeping impressionistic field notes helped when trying to find good phrases later. The standard grind of doc editing there, mitigated with the novel AI assist of transcribing. Every once in awhile we'd pull out a blimp/deadcat/shotgun thing and get some quick interviews, but only a handful. Finally, the days in the field were not really working shoots, per se. More like us hanging out with friends, so those numerous hours were not a problem whatsoever. Still, our rate card plus those hours would have kept the wife and I flush, but this is doc film making so that ain't happening. If we ever see a return on this I'd be amazed. Cheers!

Here in my small town, during half the year, we're actually doing screenings at the local performing arts center and trying to curate an interesting mix of films. Without that option, I'm not really able to make time often for an authentic cinema experience. After all, a 3 hour round trip drive is a big commitment; especially to watch a movie that may or may not be good. My reality is kind of frustrating for spontaneously catching a random movie at the theater. I sure miss that experience that was a huge part of my younger days. And, sure, I like to watch films at home, but nothing beats the communal experience of an engaged audience while watching a movie. https://www.borregospringsfilminstitute.org/

Anyone here specialize or enjoy documentaries? My wife and I made a doc for our small community and were wondering if it had any viability beyond in-town screenings at the local film fest. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gorqbss1yxq6lufl81x44/HAWK_WATCH_SCREEN_DRAFT.mp4?rlkey=x5d8vcd4igr3bix0cdsgajq0b&st=mt1xzunz&dl=0 The 1st draft here is still loosey-goosey, but if you're so inclined, take a look and see if the story intrigues you enough to say, "Yeah, you might be able to get this out there other places." We feel it's such niche topic that distribution isn't much of a reality, but maybe being niche is a positive in a certain way --and with a significant cut down it could have opportunities? Not sure. As one work on these things one gets rather myopic. As you might imagine, feedback from folks in our local community is too biased. They're just happy to see themselves, colleagues, and friends in a film. Any advice is welcome if you have time to watch.

FWIW, our latest doc used: GH5, GH4, iPhone, Xiaomi ultra 12s, Fuji X-pro2, Fuji XT5, Oly EM1mII, Oly EM10iii, DJI Mavic, GoPro, 5DII. Wanna guess which one shot the most? Which lenses were used? I can tell you, but, "eh." The film got made and it looks nice enough to us. Still, docs like ours have no shot at Sundance. The reason why it can not be considered for something like Sundance has nothing to do with equipment. If our latest doc had a better story at its core, then maybe... but it doesn't. It's just not that interesting or entertaining enough. With docs, my opinion is that you can shoot with anything that makes an image. If the story is awesome and rousing it'll get seen and lauded even if the technical quality is mediocre. Nice to have both great story AND IQ -- but story telling...camera can't only help so much in that regard, and that sort of help is really, well, not all that much anyway.

Let's hope in a larger context than cameras, yeah? The USA is a business plan more than it's a nation --and business isn't much about community. After all, once we're doing things for each other we aren't doing it for shareholders. I'd certainly rather see people congregate on-line in smaller less invasive digital places.

I've written that having any camera is "good enough" and video creatives should just go to work and make stuff? That wasn't really possible with the D90. Lord knows I tried. Totally f'ed up a shoot with Stan Lee trying to make that thing work. Ooops.

There ya go.

Still kind of amazing that the notion of buying your way into image quality with a camera is a thing these days. What others have said. Don't ignore the craft. Swap out an ARRI with a GH1 in certain production environments and you'd be, like, "Holy shit! That looks awesome!" Three or four stops of DR does not a good image make. It helps, but it doesn't make it. A decade ago a bunch of cinematic heavyweights, Coppola and the like, did a popular test screening of hybrid camera tech at the time. They were more than pleased with what the products, like a 5dII, were delivering. If it was good enough for them in 2010's, what the heck are we worried about? Also, who remembers that one talented dude guy filming in 720p on a canon rebel? I think his name started with a "Z"? Beautiful stuff because he knew how to use it. Would it have been better if it was an ARRI? Of course, but would that really affect the narrative? Anyway... And then, yeah, add in a bunch of YT knobs playing with the gear without any deep wisdom about gaffing, camera moves, and storytelling --of course the video examples of hybrids'll end up looking like crap. Here's an anecdote: I'm currently editing a documentary with a decent budget. The cinematographer on the shoots sucked balls. He filmed with an ARRI and two different REDS along the way. The ARRI has a look. It comes out of the cam with a lot of "thickness" to use, you know? Regardless, we recently had to hire a different guy to do a half day of pick up shots and he used his lowly GH5. He knew how to find the right light, frame an interesting composition, and (thankfully) knew how to hold a mother-f'ing-shot longer than 2 seconds. Grrrr. Guess which footage looked better and was more useful? We can (and should!) chase the tech if that's what floats our boats, but real creatives don't really give too much of a rip about the tech. "Is it working? Good. Let's tell this story." They make it happen with what they got.

Ah. Yes. you're right. What was it then? There was some reason audio related, I think. It's been a few years. Maybe it was a videographer couldn't live monitor the audio recording? It was something "audio" that held me back. I also remember the EM5III didn't have 60p 4K, and that bummed me out. Trying to grade Oly is always a bit of a let down too. Doable, but you don't get much leeway with, say, a GH5.

We could only be so lucky. I was really rooting for Olympus/OM because I enjoyed the EM5II and EM10III, and always wanted a PenF when it was released, but could never spend the $$ knowing I'd never have a use for it when it came to video.

Yeah, but they also removed the ability to record audio directly into the EM5III cam. It's not like the EM5II was awesome for audio, but for recording voice it was fine and that worked for me. Just really bummed the EM5III was ham-strung for video folks like us. Ultimately, I just got the EM10III (refurbished for $300, so cheap) that had the same video capabilities as the EM5III. (but still no direct audio) And the weight of hybrids never mattered to me. I used to shoot 3/4" video tape. Everything is easy compared to that. On my EM5II I used the OEM battery grip and a tank of a 55mm FD lens as my main video rig. That mass helped. As it happens, I'm still using my modest EM10III a lot. It's just not my daily driver. For that I rely on the GH cameras. Once you have high speed frame rates at 4K, such as you get with the GH LUMIX'es, it's hard to not to have that production flexibility when shooting run 'n gun. The GH cameras deliver a purty picture and cool abilities, but using them leaves me a bit cold. For some reason I just like holding and using the Olys, even though they were, and are, subpar IQ-wise.