fuzzynormal

It doesn't exist yet. And it never will. I always want more than I can have.

And he can dance. And if Footloose taught me anything, it's that if you can dance, you can change the world.

Random additions: Orson Wells. Ron Howard. Jodi Foster. Angelina Jolie. Dexter Fletcher. Lake Bell. Tim Robbins. It's a long, long list. Damn near every actor with a bit of ability seems to give it a shot. Why that should discourage anyone interested in making their own stuff escapes me.

I'm the one that made the "arts high school" quip. The images in this movie example are nice enough and I found them impressive compared to what I'm usually able to accomplish. I wish I had the talent now to shoot consistently as such over the course of an entire production, much less be able to create images like that as an 17 year old kid in high-school. I'd like to see your reel; always interested in people with skill, especially since it must be better than this Oz example. I'll check out your profile here on EOSHD and see if you have links to your work. For what it's worth, I like butter pecan.

There's plenty of affordable glass from the 70's and 80's that are decently sharp but still have lots of flaws/character. When I want "character" on the cheap, I go to my set of Pentax A110 glass. Some folks just don't like these lenses, but I've been having fun with them and, for me, they deliver on sharpness. I also use weird Russian glass when sharp isn't as important. The INDUSTAR-69 is cheesy and useful from time to time. By removing the focus limit screw (a little hardware in the lens) you can achieve some nice macro as well.

Yeah. Sure it does... it must be a heck of a prestigious arts high school that you're talking about.

It's a pretty sweet camera if it hits your needs just right. I have a client that sends me overseas a few times a year for tourism run 'n gun work --and this gear is ideal for that sort of job. I handled it in Japan recently for awhile and found the stabilization to be better than anticipated. I wouldn't get it for an everything sort of camera (not that there is one anyway), but if it fits for your purposes, it's impressive as heck at that price point. ...I'm I'm not even going to be using it @4k...client demands 60fps on their footage, so I'll have it on 1080. I'll probably go the "buy it, use it, and sell it" route as her jobs come up. Or, if I'm feeling a little more adventurous I might get my hands on a hc-x1000, but I don't really like traveling developing countries with bigger gear that looks a bit more "pro." I've had enough of that hassle (shakedowns/permits/entrance denials) in the past. Anyway, thanks again for the camera review.

Oh, just wait a few minutes...

Wonderful, I'm turning my gear over early next year, and I appreciate the review for future considerations. Bottom line, all the new stuff is pretty freaking fantastic. I'm not too worried about the re-encode process, but thanks for the heads up. I still do that old-school approach anyway with my 1080 footage so the workflow wouldn't bother me.

Downscaling just always looks better. Heck, I'm of the age that I first realized this with VHS tapes. My home movie camera and the latest rental from Blockbuster both delivered, realistically, about 300 lines of horizontal resolution, but man...those film transfers just looked so much more cleaner. Still, your desire to know more of the "why" of it all --with comparisons seems like a worthwhile inquiry. In the meantime I operate under the naive wisdom of my 1980's be-kind-rewind experiences: more rez scaled into lower rez just looks good.

Yeah, that's the film. I liked it a lot. Personally, I found myself mesmerized at how many times their static shots would just unfold gracefully, subjects moving in and out of frame, or staying still inside it, while always informing the storytelling. If it was just style for style sake, like a ridiculous superficial movie such as Suckerpunch, I'd say it was 'hokum' too, but it's not. The B&W is very purposeful. It forces the viewer's perception of the story, I think. What I find cool about it all is that it's not too hard to understand technically HOW they do all the shots they do. Quite easy really. However, for someone like me, it would be near impossible to recreate their effective storytelling cinema. There's the rub. Even though it's considered minimalist by contemporary cinema style, it's artistically impressive --and if there's one thing I've discovered while trying to be a good craftsman in motion picture creation, simplicity and poignant is incredibly difficult to do well. The film is just a good illustration to me of how tech-centric blogs like this one (which I like a lot) focus their energy in askew direction. If you want to be a good film maker it's not about buying a great camera and owning the coolest new imaging toys, it's knowing how to be a great storyteller; art built upon superior craftsmanship. The gear matters, but it's not as important as beginners and neophytes seem to think it is. Owning the best paint brush in the world doesn't make one a good painter. Those that understand this early-on have a better shot at being successful than those (like me!) that did not. On the other hand, and this is me projecting my own foibles, I tend to think that for many people just playing the game of "awesome camera" ownership is their ultimate goal, whether they admit it or not...

Not sure who'll care about this one, but I just noticed that "IDA" is now free for viewers that have Amazon Prime. IMHO, just about every shot is perfect. For me, the film was cinematography on a whole 'nother level. And whattaya know? There isn't any anamorphic, color grading, stabilization, etc. So many of the things that aspirational shooters like myself tend to worry about just aren't part of the visual narrative in this film. Yet, for me, it works. So, you know, kind of informative about what can really matter when telling a motion picture story.

Yeah, and mine is flaking off a lot of paint chips too. I've really been flogging the thing though. Still holding together. The camera looks very used and beat up at this point, which is how I like it...as long as it keeps working.

Hmmm, bit of a false equivalency retort mentioning the bmpcc, but it's the internet; no surprise. Par for the course. Your other argument is good. Tools are tools. Use what helps. At any rate, I use Panasonic cameras all the time. Adjusting the exposure manually is fast and easy assuming you know what you're doing. As you say, to do it otherwise is lazy. So, my assertion remains: the long established manual way works for a reason. Look, feel free to buy/use whatever camera you prefer for whatever rationalizations. I don't care much; only enough to note that many expectations of modern cameras seem kind of silly --especially when it's a complaint about a feature that I believe motion picture shooters should probably avoid anyway. One man's opinion. Good luck.

Oh I don't know. Perhaps you do. It's worked for over a hundred years so far...for a reason.

Who cares what Canon does until they do it? Brand loyalty when camera bodies only cost a pittace doesn't really seem necessary...does it? Even FF lenses work across brands with adapters.

There was a victor in the "loudness wars." India won with the nuclear option.

Beware false prophets.

I still use my 7d as well. (photos) I did have fun buying the thing and getting all excited about discovering the potential. That's enjoyable. But buying for the sake of buying...or just waiting for something better before you buy? You'll be waiting forever. Thats like a guy that has a pen and paper, but demands to own a typewriter before he'll write a story.

I just don't get this mentality. Get something. Use it. Make things. The alternative is just... shopping. How's is that any fun? That's a serious question. I truly don't understand. If anyone wants to try to explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.

The fact you can buy an imaging device for $900 that trumps most gear film making masters from the 70's and 60's would have loved to have is incredible. Look, if you can't do creative stuff with a piece of gear like this, you got the problems, not the camera or lens. I love technology and equipment too, but if you want to actually do something creative with motion picture making, fretting so much about which camera does this or that the best-- man, it is such a complete waste of time. Although, to be honest, If you want bragging rights and affirmation that you own the latest and greatest imaging kit, that's something else, I guess. It does seem to be a popular pastime on tech-centric blogs. I'm just amazed though--and what a wonderful time for real legitimate filmmakers (the ones that actually do stuff) -- for less than 2k one can easily buy a camera, editing system, light kit, and audio package. What to do with all that capability? Use it or talk about it?

The Japanese might like it. They love higher frame rates in their motion pictures... But for the rest of us, Peter Jackson looks to me like he's turning into his generation's George Lucas; employing technology "just because" and that's ultimately detrimental to the storytelling. Of all the types of narrative genres that benefits from the alternate reality 24fps envokes, you'd think fantasy would be the most logical choice. I don't get if either. But it hardly looks cheap. The cinematography us too 1st rate professional for that. However, from what I understand, the shot frame on these films is 48fps which means that distributing it in 24fps for those that prefer it is an easy alternative...on the other hand, the loss of edge motion blur inherent in shooting native 24fps is a shame. I like that effect. Not good for green screen of course, but still that effect offers a great disconnect from "reality."

A full POV movie could work...but you'd need to be a very accomplished visual storyteller and disciplined director to make it viable. I doubt anyone dabbling in this rig has those qualifications.

I'm too old to give a shit about this.

Good lighting isn't about the gear, it's about knowing how to manipulate 'dem photons in an artistic way. Some of the best lighting set ups I've ever done have been accomplished with just a reflector. For reference you can always check out Barry Lyndon.