fuzzynormal

If that's the metaphor, then the viewer's visual cortex of my particular guy's footage would not only be shut off, but dormant and hibernating for a few years. Elevated hundreds of feet and then panning or tilting over and over and over is not my idea of useful. I agree with you, nondescript shots are worthless if not balanced with visual context. An effective filmmaker should strive for tension and release within the visual storytelling. It's not exactly practical when the footage is always the same. No. I won't. And while given this opportunity allow me to rant. To hell with Bay. He sucks. Pre-Argument-For-Standard-Internet-Defense-Of-Bay: No, I'm not jealous. Yes, I am aware his movies make him a millionaire and he goes to the bank. Haters aren't always gonna hate, but they will critique. I do like popcorn and big fun movies. It's the ridiculously dumb ones that bother me. He's still a horrible hack and I still wish he'd stop. He's the friggin' Celine Dion of movie making.

I record all my documentary audio on an external recorder so I can control stuff in the field easier. PITA with post, but there's the trade off. That said, you can rig up separate audio sources to go into the stereo mini plug if you want. Mini-plug recording...just not a fan of that.

Indeed. I just finished a production for a client who entertained the notion that his quad flying shots were appropriate for his film. It was incredibly difficult to diplomatically try to inform him how to fly his toy. Ultimately, he just liked to fly the damn thing high to the point where the landscape basically looked nondescript/static and then he would just pan and tilt the camera around randomly. Augh. Some people would rather hang a painting of Kincaid in the house than a Wyeth. I just had to accept it. Lots of folks just don't get it. Their subjectivity skews toward tacky. With flying shots it's typically low, slow, and in a straight line. It's really that simple.

Here's some broad generalizations, but it's how I see things: My bottom line opinion is worry about the storytelling first, then fret about all the other junk. The craft and gear will fall in line behind a great idea. If you know the shots you want to create to tell a story, you can usually find a way to make even the cheapest camera/mic effectively capture it. On the other hand, if you come at it from a mostly technical side don't expect compelling videos that will enchant a layperson viewer. Walking around street shots of Berlin, London, or L.A. with a new camera is great for us here at this forum, or for people that are into gear-porn. Heck I love to see what new tech offers too, but it's a snooze-fest for a regular person that watches those types of videos. The technical side of the craft is fun, challenging, and exciting, but if you want to really be a filmmaker it's not what you put at the top of the priority list. Real film makers aren't making movies for those of us that dig that stuff, they're telling stories to a much broader audience. Try to build something like this: http://tinyurl.com/kk23m4b over building something like this: http://tinyurl.com/kak87tc ...and you'll be a step ahead of so many others in the low-end side of the biz that seems more concerned with buying things rather than making things. Just about EVERYONE in the modern world can get access to gear that has the capability to make astounding images and tell great stories. (They carry it around in their pocket and call it a smartphone) I'd argue that the majority of people with this new affordable gear don't make great stories with astounding images. So you really got to ask yourself ...which one of those people do you want to be? I'm making a short right now with a used $200 GH1 and a $20 prime lens. The image is ridiculously good. I mean...it's nuts what I'm getting for less than $250. Which is cool. Great. I'm not worried about the image. I trust what I can get based on the quality of the gear and the skills I've acquired. At this point what I worry about is the story I'm trying to tell. Is what I have my characters doing interesting to the viewer? Do my frame compositions covey the proper emotion that helps support my story? Having a Sony lowlight camera or Panasonic 4K doesn't mean squat if you don't do anything interesting with that capability. My advice about gear and kit: Don't worry about your gear and kit. Get what works well enough and then use it. That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.

I do understand the need for advanced rigs when doing production like scripted drama, but for other stuff I'm a monopod/tripod-run-and-gun type of guy. Just don't like the cages with a bunch of stuff on it. I like shooting from weird angles and wedging cameras into corners. Unencumbered works well for that.

Why do you want a full frame camera? FullFrame sensor size is larger than 35mm motion picture film. If you're making motion pictures, why not get a camera that approximates the traditional and popular film emulsion size of moving pictures?

Educating yourself is free. First, learn how to use a mic rather than buying an expensive one, or even a cheap one. Additionally, for what it's worth, I make films all the time and never use a "rig," so I don't consider that a worthwhile investment either. A good (wise) eye for the shot and a tripod is more important than rigging gear. The form factor of my GX7, for example doesn't slow me down. And my Canons works great just basic handheld with a loupe. Shot entire documentaries that way. I never gone for a shot and then thought, man if only I had that RedRock rigging gear... so I'm not fond of the rigging stuff; my personal preference. I kinda wonder sometimes if that equipment is more of an ego thing for the owner of it to look "pro" than actually a pragmatic solution.

Canon's always been warm and Sony's been cool. This goes back decades--in my experience anyway.

I've found a lot of artistic cinema folks try to break conventions and are eager to push and pull their images in new interesting ways. If a "limitation" of the technology allows them to do it, so be it. Meanwhile, others seem like they'd rather have an electron microscope individually analyzing every CMOS chip pixels -----and would prefer everything be as pristine and perfect as possible. I guess it's up to every individual to consider which option is more rewarding to them personally. But...for a layperson viewer of all the random videos out there these days, I think I know which one matters more.

You should go back in time and ask the crew that shot "Man With A Movie Camera" if their film was indeed a film. That said, random technical tests shots with a music bed are not really films, IMHO.

For what it's worth, if you're trying to emulate film, most cinematographers like the f5.6 range and the DOF that allows. It's pretty standard. So, shooting 2.8 with M43 is a nice approximation to that convention.

Okay, seriously, camera is nice. I want one. As a travel shooter I forsee myself doing this the next time on assignment: EM-1, GH4, and A7s. That'll cover all situations I usually find myself dealing with...and quite well. In a few years I suspect that a camera model will have all the strengths in one body, but I'll willingly carry three to get the job done exceptionally.

Interpret the almighty emoticon.

But: rolling shutter. Nope, can't use this camera for anything, sorry. :rolleyes: Seriously, good job Sony, thanks for pushing the market again.

Good stuff. I have 5 cameras...but plan on shooting my next short completely on the GM1 and an old Pentax f2.8 A110 25mm lens, just for the fun of it.

The 700 is lots of fun for slow-mo and can elevate pretty standard productions somewhat. Here's examples of basic shooting/editing I've done awhile back that got a nice production-value bump from slow-mo: It really is a great tool...for the right project. But slow-mo is kinda niche. Great to have, but not critical, IMHO. If you love it though, the 700 is the cam for you.

I don't know. Their corporate culture might get in the way of that assumption. I think in the future they're going to be positioned pretty much the same place as they were in the past (late 90's early 00's) when it comes to video features: behind Sony and Panasonic; certainly in price. Keep in mind that the 5DII camera which was the first serious vanguard of the DSLR video wave, was sort of a random thing, not really an asserted strategy from them. They got lucky, I think. I don't have confidence they can sell video effectively in the new/next market.

I'm personally thrilled at what's happening in the consumer level marketplace with imaging. Many of us have been waiting for this to happen for about 20 years and it's more than arrived. I've paid more for handle grips on old video cam-corders than I would for an entire camera body these days.

You say you're a full frame sensor guy and don't want to consider anything else, but have been shooting with a sensor the size of s16 for almost a year?

I don't own the lens but it would be impossible for a lens that doesn't vignette with a 2x crop sensor to vignette on a 2.8x crop sensor. If you're having a bit of trouble understanding the math behind the "cropped" sensor concepts, try to study up a bit with on line tutorials. Knowing this information will help you make better used lens purchases. C-mount stuff can be all over the place regarding how much area a lens covers.

It's sort of amusing how one can buy a camera and nice lens these days for less than 1K, turn it on full automatic mode, haphazardly point it a certain direction, and still grab some pretty nice shots with such gear. Let's face it, it's not that hard anymore to get great levels of visual quality with a little effort. However... You can buy a 10K microphone and point it in the wrong place and still get absolute crap for audio. You can buy a $50 mic, know how to best use it, where to place it, and get great results. If you don't know what you're doing with audio, learn. Learn A LOT. You can't really buy your way past ignorance and into quality when it comes to recording sound. It's not difficult knowledge, you just have to know it.

Down converting the resolution from 4K to 1080 is a nice advantage. You don't necessarily need a great computer to handle that job. And once it's 1080 converted to an edit friendly codec, like ProRes422, then you can cut (and color) your stuff easily and effectively.

I find that 2 ND filters (rated @ 0.9 and 1.8) get me through just about any situation. A 1.8 (or x64) would be close to on target for daylight sunlight at 2.8, 200ISO, and 50fps. The .9 gets the exposure on point for overcast days.

After reading and watching the PR material I think the marketing director has "Dreamer Eyes." "This one's for you Nana!" Seriously, check out the D810promo. So many odd beats in the thing. It's a good illustration of how making cinematic narrative is REALLY hard --and it's not the gear or the budget that allow it to succeed.