fuzzynormal

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.

Which one is it? A7s? GH4? Nikon? Canon? Canikon? What? Oh, you mean it's not the gear that makes compelling motion pictures, it's artistic skill...? Oh well, I guess I'll just go look at some DxO sensor charts then instead of looking at this: So, yeah, I'm being snarky, but the point is this: just about everyone has access to viable imaging capabilities now. The 13 year old girl with a new smartphone has more impressive technology in her hand than most pros did 10 years ago. The more we worry about specs, the less relevant we become as actual filmmakers. I mean, I kind of wish my profession was a bit more insulated from everyone as a competitor, but the other hand, dang, affordable technology sure is fun! Anyway, my rant stems from standing behind a so-called-pro at the airport yesterday. He was claiming to a colleague that anything done on a camera lesser than a RED Epic was "amateur hour." Seems like a ridiculous philosophy to me, but what do I know? I'm not doing high-end stuff, just making a living on the fringes. Maybe he's right?

Hey, I'm cool with any manufacturer that pairs it with newer/better sensors. Keep the good stuff coming as far as I'm concerned.

Well, it's not really impossible. Honest. You MUST control the lens, however. It doesn't erase bad camera work. I can testify that it is possible to shoot the "Roma" sort of video handheld with the OLY 5-axis feature. The main reason the Rome video works: You'll notice that the editing never shows a shot come to rest after a floating move. Those are the moments when the stabilizer will create the visual artifacts of it's use that you've asked about. If those instances were left in the edit, it wouldn't look as impressive. For instance, if you handheld pan to the left and then stop on a subject, the stabilizer system doesn't resolve this motion in a natural way. It looks mechanical as the movement ends and the frame image comes to rest. But, in the Rome video, the editor just cuts away during continuous moves, so no worries. If you plan to shoot and edit in a similar way, you can create such a video quite easily and completely hand held. I mean, I've been doing cool mini slider shots myself by leaning around corners/foreground elements and shifting my body around. I swear camera operation with the OM-D is practically like doing Tai Chi while pointing a camera at something. That's really the best way to explain it and it does work. Also note that in the Rome video the footage was conformed from 30fps to 24fps, creating a gentle slow-mo effect that also smooths things out a bit. Anyway, I spent about 20 minutes on a small boat floating around Sunda Kelapa harbor yesterday with my OM-D and the stuff looks like it could have been shot on the world's longest dolly track. For the right kind of shots, it really is that good. You have to be smooth though to begin with! Accomplished camera work is still needed. You can't just fling the lens around and expect good results. The Dixieland video above is not that impressive to me because of this undisciplined shooting. Smart considered control is a must. Caveat: Pushing the focal length above 60-ish-mm (Full Frame Equivalent) and emulating dolly moves gets a lot tricker than stuff shot with shorter focal lengths. I will say that I can see myself using this camera WITH a glide-cam type of rig to accomplish incredibly controlled, elegant, and longer moving shots. It would closely rival the best Steady-Cam shots from the most skilled practitioners. The combo would be very complimentary. While I can do glide-cam stuff decent enough, I'm not a pro at it. The 5-axis would hide those slight flaws I'd otherwise create. Now, if OLY is able to up it's specs with firmware or a new model with new/better tech, then it's really going to tempt traditional users away from their usual brands, I think. Not sure how long they'll have the 5-axis advantage, and if other manufacturers can eventually match it, but for me right now, today, it's serving a very pragmatic purpose. It fits the way I need to shoot for my stuff.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time. I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod. Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style. The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing. I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion. I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please. The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

5-Axis with a fast prime lens has been a revelation to me as a shooter. Such a great tool for so many assignments. I do find myself being impatient with the tech and wishing the video was more robust... and, yeah, @4k. 5-axis and 4K will get here soon enough though (maybe not this firmware upgrade) just wish it was here in time for my current shoot!

Yup. It's freaking ridiculous too. This is the main reason I put up with the other video limitations of the OLY cameras. The 5 axis feature trumps pixel peeping...if you're actually using the camera to shoot stuff other than a test chart.

I don't know, seems like a M43 sensor in a bigger body should be able to tolerate a short burst of hi-res raw, but maybe not.