fuzzynormal

There's a certain context there. Personally, I definitely think the implication is "...[used to be free to] say whatever they wanted and be offensive." I suppose I could be wrong there, let me know if so. But, it seems to me, maybe some people are ticked-off that a certain traditional privilege/entitlement is now being challenged in a more inclusive society. And since being a rude self-centered person is being called-out more often it kind of makes those people upset? If so, I'd ask, is being held accountable to new standards wrong? Or is it only wrong when folks disagree with the new standards? How we define these shifts in society is pretty important, I think.

Luckily, I've lined up a few gigs for the next quarter that'll keep me occupied and making a living. Not a lucrative one, mind, but a living nonetheless. Pay the bills at least. I tend to believe that when the slow finish of the pandemic is actually behind us, the pent up desire to get back to "normal" will be an over-compensation and we'll go through a period of inflated-spending in the market...so, might be good for folks like us. Imagine tourism will be bananas for awhile.

Perhaps. Although if you watch some less remembered media products from the 1960's or before --I really think you're going to see the same ratio of mediocrity and sanitized stuff we're all still complaining about now.

Also keep in mind that movies that endue the test of time are the ones that can ackshully endure the test of time! Small lot, that.

You seem a little upset that other people are upset.

Think it’s any different now than, say, 1961? Theres always been a big ratio between good and bad movies.

Simply, I don't agree with the sentiment. It's equating the pandemic response to being unjustly subjugated. So, yeah, I don't see the response as being unjust like slavery. If there was supposed to be more nuance in the initial metaphor, I didn't read it.

These two thoughts seems like an incongruity. Wouldn't every citizen not protecting themselves from a pandemic increase the general paranoia of getting the virus of said pandemic? Or maybe just ignoring it is literally what some would just rather do? --Because it's easier to do that if one has a certain POV, I guess? If so, what's the mental process to get to that attitude?

I'll offer a very contrarian suggestion. Consider a refurbished EM10III. 4k with IBIS. Good battery life. It's only around $300. So maybe just supplement it with your current camera and go that route? I downgraded to the EM10III when I sold off my GH5. Lost a lot of higher-end features in the GH5 when I did that...but then found out I don't really need or want those features. Also shoot with manual Nikon primes, usually on a speed booster. Strange thing to say, but when one is trying to fill filming niches with this hybrid gear, sometimes simple and cheap is a decent bet. Your needs probably vary, but putting this out there as consideration for everyone.

True that. Which is yet another reason the significant releases are likely to diminish. For instance, I'm a guy that sold a GH5 and acquired an EM10III.

I do worry the pace of such releases is going to be fewer and farther between.

I had one of my few clients hit me up for a huge series of online PR videos to use with their Zoom meetings. Being out and about with people during a pandemic here in the red states (and red corners of blue states) is ...ah... different; not a reassuring way for me. So, the work was lucrative, but the risk was unsettling. Just dumb luck I avoided the virus so far.

"I just don’t see this lazy excuse of a camera being anything other than a way to absolutely maximise profit margins." I wonder if this will pretty much be what we should expect from all manufacturers for the foreseeable future, considering how the camera market is globally tanking.

OP is doing weddings. Probably not a 24hr turnaround. but, yeah, I’m still kind of curious as to why they’d want to go with cutting edge hardware when proxies would help immediately for no extra costs...but if that’s what he/she wants, nothing’s wrong with that.

So I'm a big proponent of proxy editing and use it on huge documentary edits. You say transcoding isn't part of your desired workflow. Any particular reason why you're dismissing this option and giving yourself a cheap and easy way to cut?

The XT3 seems like a good bet. FWIW, I'm currently using a EM10iii I bought new/refurbished for $300 and I also have a used Oly 12-40mm pro. $500 now-a-days. The 4K and IBIS are nice. Plus, the body IBIS allows me to use vintage glass and still have stabilization. Olympus never seems to be a popular choice. Not sure why. I think some folks balk at the smaller sensor, but I also use a speed-booster so that kinda makes the system s35'ish. These mid-tier Oly cams have been a good value to me.

I do this often for a corporate client. I think your answer lies outside of worrying about the technical. Simply ask them what their expectations are regarding deliverables. If needed, educate them about the reality of working with the lousy YT compressed video. Unless they really want to pay you to jump through all the hoops to re-gather all the source footage and make the cut as pristine possible (they may be willing to pay for it), I wouldn't do it. Use the footage they offer and make it happen with that. Moreover, to ask someone else to re-deliver footage unto you should also incur a fee that the client needs to cover. I mean, I wouldn't do that for another production completely gratis. Hope you're not expecting a colleague to do so.

I shoot docs, mostly. To me good cinematography is capturing great light in a great frame that helps tell your story. Whatever tool allows you to do that is appropriate...which these days is just about any camera. I think the tech nuances of any recent (and even older) cameras are, more or less, similar to choosing a film stock —and that comes down to your personal aesthetic preferences. For doc shooting I simply go with small equipment to stay flexible on site, not be a burden to my hosts, and be as unobtrusive as possible. As such, I gravitate to M43 cams, but being “small” on location is more of an attitude and a plan to keep things modest... rather than the size of an individual camera.

? I honestly don’t get this line in conjunction with your broader implication that docs need to be ideologically balanced. I mean, MM’s doc work has never been like that.

My opinion is that video shot at that frame rate and shutter speed looks unappealing, but if you're trying to offer a bonus service, it might be worth the tradeoff. I wouldn't claim that I'd be providing "photographs," but "stills-from-video" as there's a big difference. I suppose it depends on how discriminating you and your clients are, but I would never try to pass off video shooting as photography shooting.

As you say, 60fps, shutter speed of 60.

I learned how to use a cheap glide-cam rig a long time ago. I kind of love it. Works like a champ. Never easy, but 100% reliable. It's just metal, joints, hinges, and counter weights. You'd have to run it over with a car to destroy it. And you're right, for the few times I pull it and use it, it delivers the goods. Ain't that all you need from it? Also, there's an argument for having a piece of gear that will do something well, but is somewhat of a PITA to use; I find that it keeps you "honest" visually. Do I REALLY want/need a floaty shot here? Is that visually mission critical for the project? If yes, then lug out the heavy glide-cam rig. If not, then leave it alone. I have a colleague that spent thousands on gimball stuff.... guess what almost all his footage looks like now? It looks novel, granted...but I'm not sold on it. Feels like an lazy aesthetic style of this era....like bell bottom jeans; fun while they're around, but a little cringy looking back on it once everyone moves on from it.

Years ago I committed to making a doc on a GX7 and GM1 with 23.97 and SS 1/30. Was a little unsure (even with my pre-pro tests) but became so enamored with the look it's pretty much my default settings for all things creative I do. I have a narrative filmmaking colleague that committed himself to 29.97 fps and the 180 rule of a SS @ 1/60. I hate the look. His films appear like a video abomination to my eye. He unfortunately also shoots like a videographer not a cinematographer, which is a shame too, but I digress... Worse, the reason he does 29.97 now is because he misunderstood a basic conforming projection error that he made for one of his films over a decade ago. He now can't be talked out of 29.97. Gah. Not that 29.97 if a bad idea for some things. Still, even my corporate stuff when I shoot 29.97 is often with a SS of 1/40. Something about the "long blur" that reads better to my eye than regular crispy digital video. So, slower shutter is just a thing I do in order to make the videos I deliver a little bit visually unique. With everyone shooting vids on their phone these days they're creating a certain high-shutter/high-frame-rate visual standard by attrition...I just don't want my work to look like that. And I also think you're assumption is correct, most stuttering artifacts are simply user error with shutter speeds --and improper conforming during editing. 24fps handled properly, to my eye, looks elegant and smooth. At the end of the day it depends on what you like. The video gaming young'uns dig the fast frame rates. Who's to say they're necessarily wrong?

For me it takes the edge of of reality. It’s a visual pretense that tells you what you’re watching is a bit of a conceit. There’s some real psychological power in that. Assumptions and biases are made by the viewer. These are good things depending on what narrative you’d like to present. As for YT’ers. They’ll often mess up the shutter speed regardless of the frame rate, so I wouldn’t base any decisions about one’s video settings from random content creators.

None. I've discovered that for 90% of the shots I want to get, an incredibly modest EM10III does the trick. If the other 10% is mission critical, I rent. If not, I simply suffer not being able to do certain visual tricks. So-mo, heavy grading, etc. Which, as I've also discovered are just tricks, not really a big part of fundamental storytelling/production. The burden of not being able to do something actually keeps me more visually "honest." Weirdly, I just don't fret about tech limitations too much anymore. Didn't think that was going to happen so suddenly, but for me it did.