fuzzynormal

This is a legitimate concern. They obviously decided to incorporate the rough movement of the camera as a feature of the aesthetic...but I can see how an ultra-smooth "float" of the image would have made the illusions more seamless. That sort of rigging would have been ridiculously troublesome and expensive. Look closely at what the camera does and see if you can even begin to contemplate how to fly the camera smoothly through that path. However, it's still a VERY good vid, bumps and all. I don't have the creativity to pull this off...do any of you?

It's no different than FF.

Ha ha. As if Americans have any monopoly on unethical business practices! Welcome to human nature, where people exploit other people. There are no boundaries in this regard. And, point of fact, Americans barely even rule themselves much less the world.

The artists themselves. Just like filmmaking, it's not expensive to do these days.

"how the f*** are musicians supposed to make a living?" ​Merchandising and live performance. Not saying I agree with that as a business model, but the actual music is the "loss-leader" in the new market. Sell those child labor t-shirts.

The OMD video is perfectly fine. It's not as good as a G6, but it's only lesser by a very very small amount. That amount matters to pixel peepers. To "normal" viewers of your videos, having steady shots will look much more impressive. As we can all testify, crappy handheld video is annoying to watch. Film making is not about the best resolution. It's actually a craft that's somewhat independent of the technology. You necessarily wouldn't know that by reading most subjects on this forum, (it's a boys and their best-est-IQ-camera-toys kinda place) but it's true. Knowing how to lens stuff properly, telling a good story, and understanding light is so much more important. You can't buy skill. You have to learn it and develop it. If you're lucky, you'll have a knack for it. Improve your skills (that's free) and don't worry so much about resolution. Almost any new camera these days delivers wonderful results. It's how you use the camera that matters. IMHO, the OMD line is the perfect solution for a dedicated enthusiast. The 5-axis stabilization, when applied to shots properly, will take you farther production-wise than any other camera on the market. That includes the GH4. For what it's worth, I'm buying one for an upcoming documentary shoot...rather than buying stabilizing rigging for the (really good) cameras I do have.

I'd like to believe this is real. But yeah, the ironic internet makes me doubt it.

I'm sure it's a nice camera. I used the fz200 for travel videography and even some sports productions, and it was useful...but a "super zoom-small-sensor" isn't a camera on which I'd rely. The IQ is too lacking. The long end of the lens got way too soft for my tastes, but it's all a trade off. Of course, IQ is subjective. As you allude, keep in mind with these particular consumer cams the spec sheet looks more impressive than the delivered product. I'd still consider buying one if these though. They work well enough for a lot of shots. There's good value in it.

If you're talking about the FZ1000, you might want to curb your enthusiasm. The DR is suspect. High resolution like 4K is nice, but that's not the most important thing regarding IQ.

I often do travel/tourism gigs (like the stuff seen in this video example). Those jobs are 80% outdoor shooting. Small sensor is irrelevant for that style of production. Dynamic range helps though when shooting into shadow. The FZ line isn't going to offer anything impressive there. Still, if the 5 axis hybrid stabilization thing actually works on this camera, I'd buy it. I've used the FZ200 as a b-cam for those shoots and it rendered acceptable results. The FZ1000 can only be better. Shooting 4K for 1080 is a nice luxury. Wish it were wider though...

Heck of a rant, but I'll agree with it. The tech to realize cinematic art is cheap and easy now. Almost anything you can buy can render a great image if you know the craft of it all. However, when one is overly involved with worrying about the tech, they're missing opportunities to be artistic. Being artistic is hard though. Buying cool camera stuff is easy.

If a camera has serious lowlight capabilities that's a huge value and not a gimmick...even with limitations. I can't tell you how many times I could have used a strong low-light camera in the field over the past few decades.

I do wonder how the camera would handle the kinds of high-motion footage I've seen you shoot. Previous reports express concerns regarding the jello. Still, carrying two or even three cameras around on a shoot these days is a heck of a lot easier than it was carrying just one around in the past, so I'm not put off totally by certain limitations when the payoff is of such high value. For my travel shooting gigs, a GH4, EM-D, and an A7s can live together in the same backpack with a few lenses. I could make that work.

Not familiar with the show either, but the ambition of the shots sounds intriguing.

Retail: One speedboster=$400. A cheap 13mm wide lens=$400. Or, the Panny 8mm lens=$600

Right, it's not an all-sum proposition, which is how most inter web discussions seem to go. Finding legitimate flaws in the production doesn't mean that an actual movie isn't worthwhile on other levels. If you're not a discriminating viewer of movies, fine. But if you want to be something of a film maker you should at least try to be so. Knowing why Kurosawa is superior to a contemporary studio guy like Bay matters. As an aspiring film maker of any legitimate level you gotta try to know why, understand why, and appreciate why. This particular BatMan movie production was a beast of logistics and it does look like some chaos and unwieldiness of the production ended up on screen. Or maybe it's just me... Establishing the "geography" of a scene and allowing for coherent action is out of favor these days with a-list films. Bombast trumps cohesion. I'll take a 3 minute single pan wide shot of 2,000 extras and horses ransacking Aqaba in real time rather than 300 .5 second edits with 2 dozen explosions.

The argument that financial success justifies something as a meritorious crafted or artistic success is more than a bit delusory. Pop culture just doesn't work that way.

Actually, unless I comprehended it incorrectly, that isn't the context if the initial sentiment.

It is. I do this often.

For what it's worth, I bought a single 1.8 ND and a collection of step up rings to adapt them all to my different lens thread sizes. I typically hit the field with a collection of three primes, so it's pretty easy to swap.

Look at the result and decide for yourself. Personally, I don't like it. An interesting side effect of a high shutter speed: Perceived resolution increases. Since edges of things stay sharp and defined rather than blurred it just looks like there's "more" there. However, that is not an organic image and is very mechanical/clinical to me. ...And the only thing needed to control exposure in bright outdoor light is a modest collection of neutral density filters. For mid-day sun, I like my ND rated @ 1.8; cuts down the incoming light enough that I can work my iris in the f2 range and adjust exposure with a bit of ISO play.

I'll expand on Com21's comment. A benefit of the G3, or any wireless system, is that you can have a mobile lav on a subject and monitor it easily at the recording source. The recording source and the subject can move about freely. Also, if something goes askew, like the mic rustling on cloth, you'll know about it. It's just a practical tool.

Okay, strike "action" from my response and re-read it. Also, color is not one of the fundamental tools, it's a supplemental one. More than half of all recorded cinema is testimony to that.

I hear this a lot, but it hasn't been my experience. Smaller lenses with longer focal lengths are readily available too. A little research into small M43 compatible primes will reveal numerous options. Various threads on this forum about it in fact. And go to B&H while in NYC. It's a bit crazy in there but worthwhile; better than the big box retailers in Tokyo!

Color helps, but it's not a fundamental. Fact is, folks before color like Eisenstein were kinda better at action sequences than Nolan, and Sergi was sort of starting from scratch when he did it.