fuzzynormal

It matters.

I think it's nice to have friends that are good actors and that can do earnests naturalistic reading of heavily metaphorical writing. Seriously. That is NOT easy to do. Without the allegorical VO the short would be rather typical of what we normally see on Vimeo, eh? To be honest, I'm not sure why the NX1 is mentioned specifically...images look decent; not bad, not great. I wonder if it must be some sort of PR thing going on with Samsung and Levitt? Anyway, short, punchy, held my interest.

Shoot motion pictures with manual camera control.

Any camera is perfect as long as you actually do something with it...besides just take test pictures of leaves and then compare DxO charts the rest of the time. Or, just wait for the next big/best thing. Have a lot of patience because it never comes.

I've always had problems with color clipping in nightclubs and weird stage lights. Maybe the A7s is more sensitive to this because of the way it's engineered for low light, but I've yet to use any camera that does not ultimately have issues with this. That's my experience anyway.

Don't feel silly. The extremely narrow "DSLR" DOF is kind of ideal for interviews. The key to getting good interview shots is to always have as much depth/distance in the background as possible and have the bacdrop behind the talking head be about 2 stops darker than the subject. If you can arrange the space and subject to accomplish that you'll get decent interviews everytime. FYI, I always turn off the lights in office space then do my own. Office lighting is horrible and almost never flattering.

I use B&W ND. No complaints other than they're a bit more expensive than others.

The Nikon D750, The Sony A7s, the Nikon d810...all cameras costing more than triple what a $500 GX7 goes for. Just saying. The Lumix's IQ competes well too. Not that those other cameras mentioned aren't nice pieces of gear, but that GX shooting exceptional 60p on the cheap is pretty sweet. I just used the GX7 with that frame rate on a job last week and I'm using it again tomorrow. Anyway, that's my testimonial. Good luck!

40mm FF equiv is too short a lens for interviews I think. I did that set up once with my Gx7 and it's just not very flattering for faces; too close and distorted. You can get a 45mm f1.8 prime for M43 at a decent price. I use that alot for talking heads. If you want something really cheap and just plan on using it for interviews in controlled lighting, you might even consider a used 5DII with a used 85mm lens.

"Surely, you can't be serious..."

I've been very pleased with my gx7 @60p 1080. The camera is below $500 in the U.S. now so it's not much to give it a try. Impressive IQ as far as I'm concerned. It's nice and clean.

Doesn't have to be ideal to be effective. Besides, a small 5-10% crop to fix some wonky framing is not going to reveal too many flaws. I know many strive to have perfect pixel peeping portraits present in their productions. Possibly, particular people present partake polar preferences. Potential poll, perhaps? Point is, 4k is a good development. Why so many nay-say it is weird.

Mock it if you must, but when shooting 4K for documentary, corporate, or "low-pro" jobs this ability is an effective tool to have.

Color grading a down coverted 4k to 1080 clip. As you say, that's nice, to have that little extra push and pull. And, yeah, reframing if required. --In case you need to salvage a visual "motif" on a misframed shot ...for those of us plebes that do lowly documentary and run n gun corporate stuff. Now supersize it and give me toy with my happy meal.

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?