fuzzynormal

This is an insight that's sometimes overlooked by gear nerds. We want everything to be latest and greatest and cheap to boot, yet to sustain a brand in a broad market sometimes corporate strategies just lead companies a different direction. I'd argue it's all pretty dang good these days anyway. It's getting to the point where IQ in the consumer space is very comparable across the board. A company has to navigate that reality. Unfortunately for us lower-end folks, a corporate strategy is not always about leapfrogging the competition with imaging specs in the newer models. It's understandable to me why Canon wants to delineate it's consumer and pro divisions. We wish it wasn't so, and that the most aggressively innovative products always won the day, but that's just not reality. Even still, we're getting loads of great products these past few years.

Yeah, I'll need some pretty extensive therapy and may convert my religious affiliation to a Himalayan Buddhist sect in order to cope, but with a little luck I think I'll pull through. Either that or I'll just curl up into a fetal position with my old 5D and coo gently to it as I fall asleep. Eh, perhaps both.

Okay Quirky, you win the know-more-than-the-other-random-guy-on-the-internet-award. Be sure to hang that above the mantle.

I hereby qualify my statement. "Canon's CAMERA, although not specifically designed to do so, was a catalyst that encouraged a new revolutionary wave of indy filmmaking." May my transgressions be forgiven! My broad original statement failed to parse enough detail! The wrath of the pedantic is upon me. That said, the new Nikon camera looks well heeled enough for folks (that actually LIKE the DSLR motion picture aesthetic, and want an awesome stills camera too) to give it some thought. For what it's worth, I had a D90, and it was awful for video.

It may seem weird and ironic that the brand which launched the EOS filmmaking Revolution is the same that doesn't seem to worry about it all, but at this point, who really cares? So many good alternative options, let them persue their strategy and we'll just go elsewhere. Seems like there's plenty of room for everyone.

I always wonder if humanity could handle it. Too boring. On the other hand, a camera with exploding rainbows would be awesome.

Same sensor as the gx7, yet my gx7 ain't doin no 4k. Man, I need to hire a coder to take care of that... That camera needs a hack.

I really like the anamorphic look, but I kind of disagree that it's one of the technical aesthetics that define "cinematic." Encouraging lens development though! Nice that it can be done on a budget if you really want it.

Yeah, I like the idea that it'll hold resell value a bit more on the backend. That, with the more realistic initial retail price, makes it tempting.

Anyone that wants it is going to have pro level imaging soon soon soon.

Man, I'd love to shoot this for a particular client I have. Thing is, they demand 60fps video. Still waiting for it on 4K...otherwise, this would be the ideal product for their jobs.

Fun stuff. Nothing like a good competitive kick in the pants for Canikon.

I don't have a Facebook account, so my answer would be "No, I wouldn't use it."

Sweet. I can truly use this in an upcoming documentary. Refurb M1's can be had for 1k. Used, even less. Not a bad deal. Still has to offer the right frame rate though. We'll see.

It's like the infamous explanation of pornography from a 20th century U.S. Supreme Court Judge, "(It's) hard to define, but I know it when I see it." When it comes to good cinematography, I say it's an overall quality that is a sum of all it's parts. It doesn't have to have DOF or great lighting, but if it artistically defines and supports the story, then it's happening.

On iOS Safari, not seeing a link to the forum from the front page.

You can experiment with thousands of ways to accompish the exporting, but I'm a big fan of K.I.S.S.. You want 25p? Keep your entire workflow in 25p 'til your final cut is created and standing alone as an individual .mov file, that way you know what you got is what you want as you want it. Once that's done, then take the next step(s).

Neither am I, but software being weird and having so many parameters that may or may not be working appropriately, tick boxed here or not ticked boxed there... the extra step of assurance keeps the process under control. Works for me anyway. Never been a fan of Compressor myself.

A good start is to monitor your edit playback on your own broadcast "TV" display not your computer monitor. (with the proper playback capabilities) The most likely scenario is that you inadvertently built the edit with a higher frame rate than intended and then delivered it that way. Computer monitors are progressive, so you wouldn't see an accurate representation of an interlaced frame rate. And even though you didn't shoot interlaced, since it was a high frame rate, that higher frame rate was maintained somehow throughout your post production/exporting. I'd assert this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the camera. It's a post-production mistake. Something wasn't set up correctly in your workflow. My experience for Japan and NorthAmerican TV spots: (ntsc) I build my progressive edits/videos and then export the final clip as a self-contained stand-alone .mov file. This way I'm assured I have a true progressive .mov file at the 24p fps aesthetic I want. Then I place it on a timeline/sequence that's 59.94i and re-export under those particular settings. I'm curious though, what was the intent of shooting 96? Were you converting some of your shots into slow-mo?

To confuse matters even more, some display/tv sets these days will actually interpolate "missing" frames in real time with their internal electronics, making slower frame rate "film" material appear more like "video." ...and don't even bother trying to explain aspect ratios to casual consumers or get them to correctly display an image as intended... It's all a friggin' mess these days.

If you want to portray a character struggling to move forward, trapped, not making progress, stressed that they're not going to get where they need to be in time, etc. ...even though he/she is moving toward the lens, a long lens shot is a good way to show that metaphorically. "The Graduate" comes to mind. The character runs toward the lens but never seems to get closer. Of course, this cinematic trope is used as a joke in "The Holy Grail."

When I'm here on this site I feel I'm more akin to the self-proclaimed coffee shop "author" that talks more about his typewriter than the stories he should be composing. What do you do to get motivated and create? I'm wrapped up in some ennui over here. Too much endless corporate work perhaps? Not sure. Making a living, but yearning for something more, so there's a lot of wandering aimlessly around the web. Basically, as a filmmaker, it's hard to feel productive visiting tech blogs like EOSHD...and for some reason it's a way too common destination/distraction. Curious that, for lots of reasons. It's great for some simple advice, but honestly there's not a ton of actual filmmaking discussion going on. I think my gear-porn tendencies are a huge liability as an actual creative. Augh, how to get off one's ass and get something worthwhile made?

No kidding. The craftsmanship of the images is incredible. The use of negative space is really inspired. The movements that enter and exit the frame are meticulous. And I'm not here to say that image IQ from consumer gear would match than what they accomplished, just that the creative juice behind the framing would still be viable and impressive no matter what was used. When you see the film you'll know what I'm talking about. The static shots are extremely motivated static shots. When they're not, they're not for a very deliberate reason that doesn't just relay the story, it absolutely defines it. How many movies really truly do that? The framing is not odd at all when in the context of the narrative. What the visual vocabulary does in that film is really cool. It's aided by good imaging technology (whatever it was) but not carried by it. Even with less DR and IQ the film would still work, the compositions are that good. So, it makes me consider that I've been focusing my energy way too much on the tech recently--and the cinematography in this film kind of expose what I think has been the folly of that approach (these thoughts are just my hangups and frustrations at the moment, your mileage may vary)

Look, I'm kind of a gear slut like most of us here, but I think this movie I watched last night could've been shot with worthwhile results on any consumer grade camera released recently. Give or take some IQ and DR between whatever camera used, sure, but even it was shot on an iPhone I think it would still be a viable visual success. It succeeds, in my opinion, on mesmerizing visual creativity. I was astounded by the disciplined cinematic compositional craft of the work. Sure, the technical tools used to realize that creativity are important, but I wonder if we place way too much emphasis on the tools vs. the creativity? And, if by doing so, does that restrict growth as a filmmaker? Is that not a fair question to contemplate? Or is my existential mid-career-crisis musings better suited on some other blog that's isn't so tech-centric? ...Or perhaps it is the best place?

Of course nice cameras make superior pictures. The thing I'm considering is this: everyone has access to decent camera tech and it's only getting better and cheaper. The more I worry about gear the less time I'm trying to make my skills as an actual filmmaker improve. More and more talented people have access to filmmaking that would have been limited in the past.. Out spending or out buying them when it comes to the gear isn't much of an advantage. Being able to realize creative filmmaking ideas and solutions seems like a better focus of effort... and I used to love being the techy guy, but I really feel like it's time to let all that go.