fuzzynormal
-
Posts
3,106 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Everything posted by fuzzynormal
-
Not an issue for me. I got a "Pixco" adapter off ebay (for whatever that's worth). Anyway, here's an example. You can see blurriness around the edges of frame, but like I say, I think that vignetting adds character. Center of image is decent even into the distance. I'll admit if you get these lenses you're not buying the world's best glass, but it does the job. Again, if you're on a real tight budget, these lenses will give you good options with various focal lengths and are super cheap.
-
BTW, the a110 lenses are all set at f2.8. Which is kind of the FF equivalent to f5.6 on m43. Sorta the traditional cinematography sweet spot for DOF.
-
With those a110 lenses I can get focus on distant objects no problem. You've had issues doing this?
-
Short horror film shot entirely by ONE GUY getting lots of praised.
fuzzynormal replied to M.N's topic in Cameras
I tried to make a horror film once. It's junk compared to this. -
One option: Get a dumb adapter and buy really old and used lenses. The Pentax mount stuff is cheap kuz they were the goto SLR for beginners back on the day. A fast 50mm, perfect for interviews, can be found for 25-50 bucks. Another option: I bought a Pentax a110 camera with three primes on eBay for $65. 12mm, 24mm, and 50mm. The adapter for these lenses was $10. I've had a lot of fun with this glass. It has character and really makes my Lumix footage look less sterile. (A lot less sterile) I really like 'em and what they give me. Bought adapter rings to mount the same thread ND's and lens hoods for all 3 lenses. Spent about 150 total, plus got a fun old camera (with a half roll of shot film in it) with the glass. Works good. I even appreciate the flaws and flares they render. Your mileage may differ, but I'd recommend giving them a try since you budget is tight.
-
Suggestion: "screening room" as a sticky thread instead of a subforum?
fuzzynormal replied to utsira's topic in Cameras
I'd willingly browse a thread of videos the moderators deemed worthwhile...if that's something they'd have time to do. -
Ultimately, I'm not sure what the kerfluffle is regarding this test. Perhaps I just don't relate much to people that would ignore what's happening here. It shows the camera doing some respectable shots under ridiculous conditions. As a guy angling toward documentary production, I am impressed. I can think of hundreds of ways to utilize the opportunity that a low light sensor offers. If you're a shooter and can't recognize that technical convenience and then consider the possible exploitation of it --but would rather just dismiss that potential in favor of some rhetorical ulterior motive... Well, my guess is you're gonna have some issue in your "career." And yes, I just made sarcastic quotes around the word career. For instance, a dismissive personality might hinder worthwhile collaboration in an industry that thrives on such. Maybe that's a bit of a stretch to connect between two dots? Maybe not.
-
4k has more crop factor, so the edge blur on the Fujinon minimizes. Anyway, I think you want something that doesn't really exist. Fast, wide, sharp, and NEW doesn't really equal affordable.
-
The Kodak corporation is a corporate zombie. There's certainly not much brain power left in upper management, and even if there was, brand value is all they have left to deal. It was a more or less a walking corpse two decades ago when they were unable to pivot with the market. With Fuji out of film manufacturing and Kodak is disarray, the studios are going to have to buy the technology, patents, and hardware if they want to keep it going. I can't imagine a small niche company investing in the licensing and materials to service such a limited market. It's gotta go "in house," doesn't it? If studios and directors demand the glory of film, I kinda think they're gonna have to make it happen themselves. Meanwhile the rest of the industry has adopted digital as a pragmatic and welcomed standard, for better or worse.
-
Beggars, choosers, and all that. When you're on a budget you make compromises. Otherwise, you can get this lens: http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Zuiko-Digital-Thirds-Cameras/dp/B0058PL9R0 Which I did. It's nice and sharp. Easy to manually focus too.
-
China's drone king says the revolution depends on regulators
fuzzynormal replied to sunyata's topic in Cameras
As they gain in popularity and more idiots like me try to fly 'em, you can bet someone on the ground is going to get seriously injured soon. I've crashed mine more than once. From an American perspective: All it takes is one notorious story in the media claiming an injury trend and legislators will have an excuse to regulate some nonsense. -
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/CCTV-Lenses/ci/3659/N/4045021054
-
Eh, I say half this stuff to motivate me to concentrate on the more important things. I'm pretty much a gear slut myself. Honestly, it's easier to moon over tech specs than it is to be creative. I'm as guilty as anyone.
-
Fun and simple shoot/edit. Looks fine to my eye. The thing is, you could shoot footage like that on just about any new camera on the market. I don't see anything in that edit that couldn't be done on a Canon, Lumix, Sony, etc... Which is why it's getting a bit ridiculous to champion or criticize modern digital cameras. IMHO, it's pretty much splitting hairs at this point. They're all more or less good enough. In other words, the technology in ANY new cam ain't gonna stop anyone from accomplishing impressive shots. It might help in one direction or the other, but the limitations are kinda minimal. "This one does something slightly better than that one!" Big deal. Go use 'em to make stuff already.
-
That's very much changing. It doesn't bother the Japanese, for instance...and I'd say the modern blockbuster movies don't look all that much like the traditional 70's-90's "film look" anymore either. Even the ones that are shot on actual film.
-
I've been happy with the GX7. The ergos took a bit getting used to, but not too difficult. Also, I'm a guy that likes smaller form factors. Not sure why, but I definitely prefer it over the tendency of rigging stuff up so it looks "impressive." I'd recommend the camera without hesitation if you're of the same mind. Great camera for not a lot of money and it's getting more and more affordable as it gets older. It really looks great with older lenses on it. Very practical for all sorts of weird glass with character, as most M43 cameras are... You can hit up my vimeo page listed below via cut and paste; haven't done anything reel worthy is a long long time. I've not been making a living with film production for awhile as I pursue other career opportunities, but I do like doing motion pictures and will never give it up, that's for sure. I'm still making personal short films though and my goal is to somehow make a feature length documentary by next year.
-
Yep. Battery swaps are pretty easy and the 3rd party batteries are cheap. Personally, I really like this camera. It's unassuming and very stealthy, but has awesome quality. Fun stuff.
-
Based on what I've seen with that corporation, I'm curious if they actually do want to live. I get the impression that the investors that are still left mostly just value the brand and not the actual physical company, products, and employees. It seems to me they're trying to tread water with lead shoes. They really can't manage to go anywhere, best they can do is to keep from drowning. When a couple of kids can release a digital camera that rivals your own design and development, (DBolex) you know you got issues.
-
Anyone here using any of these cameras to actually make movies and stuff, or am I just reading SOP internet rhetoric?
-
It is. I actually prefer the look of older lenses in this camera and the gm1. Good results and nice character. A cheap old 24 or 50 mm lens goes a long way on M43, IMHO.
-
That's uninterrupted recording, btw. I have a handful of 3rd party batteries that only do about 1/2 the juice of the OEM. Of course the 3rd party bats are a lot cheaper.
-
Last week I used it as a b cam on a shoot and just let it run using the OEM bat... Ran for just over 60 minutes. 30p 1080.
-
I'll agree to that up to a point. For instance, color grading is only one aspect of the image. I'm always concerned with it, but I would't consider it my top priority. Composition is at the top of the list for me. Still, it's all cumulative. And if you're striving for the best, the devil's in the details.
-
IMHO, Any of them are fine and you'll be able to do what you want to do. Those that worry endlessly about the tech are missing their chance to just get out the damn door and go shoot something creative and compelling; making work that demands to be reckoned with. Now, it's understood that lots of people just love having new gear and seeing how perfect they can make their footage. That's why I've looked at seemingly endless shots of London, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, and L.A. over the past few years. And even though I love playing with new toys, I'm of the mind that trying to perfect one's storytelling rather than the image is far and away a much more important endeavor. Nothing trumps skill and ability. I like to craft the narrative more than the image...even though I like to get the best image possible as well. Nowadays, I just pick the gear that fits the project. RAW in a film shoot production is slow but viable and sometimes worth the hassle. For docs, I'd shoot compressed and utilize the easy storage. But it's all just options, y'know? Doing a doc in low-light? Consider the Sony. Making a real estate video? How about the GH4? Shooting a short film on a shoe string? That BMPC sure would help... Gotta fly a cam or stick it on a kayak? Go-Pro. Can only do handheld and you need steady shots? How about that Oly OM-D? etc. Ultimately, if you got talent you can make a great film with an iPhone.
-
To be fair, a nondescript shot can work well in the right context. All depends on what you're trying to do. But I do think one does need a strong visual vocabulary to support those types of images. All I'm getting at regarding the recent quad footage I've had to deal with recently --is that the pilot was visually mono syllabic and I needed images for his edit that had some poetry. As for Bay, I'll use any excuse to complain about him.
