fuzzynormal

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.

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.