fuzzynormal

If it was, say, a mug falling to the ground on a busy street, and you had control of the set, I'd film the background on a lock down shot with everything and everyone faking moving in slow mo. Then green screen the object off the same camera lock down. In post you can use a twixtor type plugin more effectively when the object has clean/no-overlapping edges. Once you got that set, you could composite the two shots. You probably only want to hold a shot like that for a second or two before you cut to another... But I don't know what you're going for ultimately, so that might be a worthless suggestion ;-) Anyway, here's a fun website for cool compositing techniques. Just keep in mind, if you're new to all this it's gonna take a lot of hours in post to make it happen. http://www.videocopilot.net/tutorials/

"What is the point of 4K" Ignoring the difference between DR and IQ in various cameras, which isn't what the OP asked anyway: More resolution gives you more flexibility with the image in post. 4K is suddenly affordable and pretty decent in low-light. What's not to like about that reality?

Yes, the lens choice needs to be paired directly to the sensor size for the poll to make any sort of logical sense. For example, I like a 30mm lens on a MFT as an all-around lens, but wouldn't use a 30mm to shoot a head shot with a FF sensor.

As I said, there's alot of fundamental information about how all this knowledge ties together. It's not that most of us are unwilling to try to explain stuff, but there's an essential foundation and grasp of basic theory you'll need before you can successfully implement practice. And typing ALL that out would be near impossible in an abbreviated way. Although I'm sure you'll get help here on this forum. As I can tell from your questions, you don't really understand the nature of light and camera exposure. So, to go from the basics of grasping that --to the comprehension of applied practice on an impressive special effects shot is a long haul, but if you're willing you should definitely give it a try! Trying and failing is one of the best educations. Here's a real simple start explaining some basics: http://wolfcrow.com/blog/understanding-camera-shutters-and-the-shutter-angle/ If that GoPro software is free, I'd suggest you try that first.

That chart is kind of pointless. Viewing distances for everyone is variable. I can't shoot at 480 and tell people to stand on the other side of the room to watch my video.

I like it. I shot a lot of similar footage and locations for a client. Kekak fire dance, Mt. Bromo, etc.. I never edit the footage once it's delivered, but after seeing this I'd like to do something similar. Good stuff.

What attitude? You have to know this stuff and admitting you might be ignorant about some stuff is no big deal. My ignorance is astounding. As you mentioned, you're probably going to use 50fps because that's what your camera is capable of. I'm guessing you can't really accomplish what you want to do all in camera at that frame rate, and the "why" about it is a big answer. If you decide to use a different camera have you considered what you'll have to do about exposure at high frame rate? Are you shooting indoors or outdoors? Day or night? Is HMI rental a possibility? Regarding software solutions, you have to shoot in a very very particular way so you can make something akin to super slow mo via Twixtor or something similar. Twixtor is not a magic plug-in that invents moments in time that never existed on the footage --so you have to shoot your subject under very narrow guidelines in order to make it work in a somewhat useful way. The limitations of the plug-in might make your shoot impractical. Only you can decide if that plug-in will work for you that 'kuz we don't know what you have in mind. I've shot slow-mo productions on the FS700. If you need to rent something cheap, that might be your best best. Still, maybe 240fps is still too fast for you? The faster frame rates the fs700 does is cool, but the resolution is pretty bad when you push the rates high. Does that matter or can you live with a softer image?

I shoot remote places from time to time. I'd place mobility of gear at a premium to catch wildlife as one has to scramble (quietly) to get into position. So, I'd lean to any new mirrorless 4K cam. The Samsung looks interesting. After all, the unofficial motto of National Geographic shooters getting accomplished shots is: "f8 and be there." I'd trust their insight. A great shot is all for naught if you're not good enough or flexible enough to capture it. Now, if you just want the best pixel peeping product, that's another story... http://philipbloom.net/2013/10/10/4kraw/

I made more doing less 15 years ago than I do today. That's the reality. And since the gear is cheap, more creative fresh people give it a go --and have skills doing it. Can't stop it. If the solution is being a group of trades folks that are snobbish and cloistered about their skills, not sharing their enthusiasm for creation...then I'll just do something else. Bottom line, if you're good in a valuable way you can rise above the floor "talent" and make a living. For instance, maybe youre not the most creative dude out there but you have fun, are cool to hang out with, are always are reliable, and beat deadlines by a day. Someone's gonna value that and give you work.

I'd suggest you "do the maths" for your answer. Understanding why or why not the effect you're attempting is practical is also critical for understanding how motion picture capture is created (aka: "good quality footage") in a more generic sense. Now, that said, if you shoot your ultra slow mo shots in a very particular way, you can effectively simulate the illusion of superslowmo with a post production plugin such as twixtor. But...you HAVE to comprehend completely how that plugin does what it does too, and why, for good results. Bottom line, you got some studying to do. Good luck

Moving the camera closer to the subject for tighter shots and moving away from the subject for wider shots is too complicated?

For a guy, like Bloom, getting really nice images has a lot to do with talent and skill. It's not necessarily about the camera. People that know what they're doing can make most cameras look wonderful. Owning the same gear they do isn't a guarantee of much.

Yeah, I have a client that always needs 60fps. If this cam would do it, I'd buy it tomorrow.

Nope, that's for sure. It's always a compromise. Not that internal lighting can have an interesting look, but control of the light, if possible, is always a good way to go.

My company just finished a documentary shoot with a GX7 and the GM1 was the b-cam. Their image IQ is the same from my experience. We put a loupe (a cheap Hoodman) on the GM1 for focus assisting. Not a bad solution. Looks ugly as hell, but it works. It's my stealth camera. We use it to shoot clean and impressive video in locations where we need to fly under the radar. We also do a lot of run and gun small business work; shoot lots of restuarants. One of my main gigs in the past was filming restaurants and galleys on cruise ships. Most of that was done on NTSC cameras and 2/3" CCD sensors. That said, if there's an attractive evenly lit small business on the planet I've yet to find it. Here's my easy solution to make the lighting in businesses look better: Turn off their lights. Always. Then utilize the natural source as best you can and supplement with your own sources only if needed. 2 or 3 good LED's will do the trick since most cameras these days are decent in lower light. Many times just having some natural light pouring in with good drop off into the distance is enough to get by. Hitting your subject with some side rim/back light makes a ton of difference. Strategizing effective angles that take advantage of that new light is the final step. It's fast, simple, and effective. You do that and your work will look better, doesn't matter what camera it's shot on. If I could pound one sentiment into the heads of video and photography enthusiast it would be this: Stop worrying about camera bodies and lenses until you understand light and learn to control it. An education in this stuff is free on the interwebs. You can become a better shooter than most overnight with an earnest ambition to apply good lighting to your work...but since knowledge is not something you can purchase from B&H not as many people rant about it online.

For what you're trying to accomplish, my guess would have me starting with a GH4 with a longer prime lens (85mm)? Not sure how wide of a field of view you'd want. Not too close, not too wide; covering about 1/4th the field all the time? I'd also suggest you study up on the concept of resolution. Unlike what a make believe Hollywood narrative suggests, you can't zoom in during post, hit a button that goes "bloop, bloop, bzzzzz" and "enhance that there!" "Yeah! We can read the label on his pocket! We solved the crime!" You CAN post-zoom in on a 1080 image, but it might be too blurry for your uses. If you want impressive close ups you have to use optics or move your feet and get closer to the action. Now, since you can't move, you better shoot the highest resolution you can with an appropriate lens. 4K for sure. I've found that many stadium lights will give you a decent exposure around f5.6 and 800iso. Of course, that depends on the stadium. Smaller organizations' fields tend to be not as bright. Modern cameras like the GH4 tend to deliver a good picture at 800iso. Most slower zoom lenses are still in the 5.6 f-stop range. You'd want to stop down for better sharpness anyway. And old prime lenses are cheap. Whatever you do, try to test out your gear beforehand. If you're setting yourself for a long run at all this and plan on using the gear for awhile, maybe rent and test for a few days to find the right solution.

My first hire in the media bizness (so long ago I still had baby fat hanging off me) involved working with a local hometown idiot that had purchased his way into the profession. Back then, that was the key that unlocked the gate to such a career. So, he had a 6 figure investment in all this prosumer gear and couldn't do anything worthwhile with any of it other than show up and turn it on. Nothing creative happening at all. Funny thing was, he was very protective of his so called abilities and guarded his imaginary secrets of production like they were some sort of invaluable patent to success. I just remember thinking, "Um...no Larry, a star wipe isn't anything special." I quit later that week. Man, he was ticked-off when I walked out on him! One of the better decisions I made in my career, even though he made me feel like I was two inches tall on the way out the door. Point is, you succeed in a collaborative business by, you know, collaborating. Especially with people better than you. If you don't, you won't.

This. x5. My wife did media production once for a business/social group of women starting out in entrepreneurship, and dealing with the earnest but wholly misguided people in that circle was beyond ridiculous. We still do a lot of work for small business, and you can tell in 10 minutes which folks can actually do their job and which folks are on their way to failure.

As the guy in that really big suit once said, "stop making sense."

That video was with the older 5D and 7D.

Since we're all tangential at this point, anyone watch season 4 of "The Killing"? They switched to a different camera; was wondering if it's a Sony?

Just shot a documentary with a GX7 and GM1. No regrets.

From the POV of an old fart: Can someone explain brand loyalty to me if so inclined? For some odd reason I seem to see people investing themselves in a brand rather than technique. In my experience, I know this is kind of a legacy attitude among mid-level "pros" I've worked with. (Corporate media types) When you find something that solves a problem for you you tend to build a little trust with the brand...but these days gear development just moves so quickly and is acquired so cheaply that seems like an outdated notion. If Canon doesn't offer what you want, why fret about it? Move onto different gear. There's always going to be something serving the niche' market in which we're all active. If you invested in some camera body and you want to believe you made the right choice --and so you extoll the virtues every chance you get, what are you trying to accomplish exactly? Some sort of piece of mind for yourself? Affirmation of your superior shopping capabilities? A list of impressive features don't mean a thing if you have no clue or directed ambition on how to use them. I mean, I'd willingly hire someone with wonderful skill, enthusiasm, and an old 5DII than a self-righteous goof-ball and an FS700 shooting 4K. --I've made that mistake this past year. A 22 year old out shot a mid-40's dude and all his toys by a creative factor that would make your head spin. And, personally, I'd rather be the kid trying new stuff and busting butt to be creative rather than some jerk reading DxO Mark charts half the damn day. Here's a tangent: you know what matters more when making an awesome film or video? Superior Production Design. Sets, Wardrobe, Cast, Location. Do that on an impressive level and the work will almost always be better. Yeah, but that's not tech-centric, involves hard demanding logistic work, interpersonal skills to deal with people, and is boring as hell, right? This spec-centric stuff is really annoying me...but then, I'm old and cranky about everything anyway. Maybe I should question less why people want to brag about their cameras and ask why I'm on a website that caters to them? Dang, I'm really off the rails here!! Oh well.

If you're worried about technology ruining your ability to compete in this market, you're doing your job incorrectly or you're just not good enough at it. Heck, I've recently seen work (listed in this forum) where a kid with an old Ti is wildly more accomplished than a lot of us tech nerds with the newest and "bestest" camera.

"Does Cinema EOS mark the end of high spec Canon DSLR video?" If it does, why worry about it? They don't want to play in the market niche? No problem as I see it.