fuzzynormal

Y'all need to watch some Journey videos if you find this amusing.

I don't understand the sarcasm. This was just about every single music video in the early 1980's and it's glorious. Martha Quinn probably introduced this video after an on-set interview with Sue Ross.

It really hasn't changed since the 80's. And 80's cameras were like 70's cameras. To be fair, the Ikagami tube camera I learned on had less buttons because it was a simpler machine, but the layout and button ergonomics were similar.

I'm an owner of an EM10III and 3 lenses, but typically only use one (manual prime) ...and I make films all the time, so my perspective is that almost all this gear on the market pretty much works great if you know what you want and how to get it.

Probably safe to say that with 3K you'll be fine with whatever kit you end up with. If you can't get impressive images with that level of camera, it's not the camera, y'know? Personally, I'd worry less about the specs in that segment of the market and check out ergonomics and other such "intangibles" as you handle display models.

When you have the luxury of time to set up your shots. Run and gun doc filming needs proper exposures at a moments notice, usually through various light levels WHILE FILMING. I hate the variable ND affects the IQ, but I use them anyway because they're a valuable tool.

Eventually ended up being a dedicated virtual keyboard instrument for our bubble-gum-punk-rock band. --Dial up a keyboard emulator and go to town. Moog, Jupiter, Hammond, Harpsicord, String Ensembles, etc. We used that thing until 2012. Not a bad life cycle for a laptop.

I had that laptop too. Rugged little bugger...well, at least mine held together okay. Went around the world with me a few times. Miss it. Was really a good balance of size/performance.

Not sure if it's possible, but I still prefer the original scheme. Less contrast is more comfortable for me (older guy) to read. Anyway to offer that as a theme preference selection?

I was wondering what that film crew was doing in my hometown last month...He was here doing "Last Days in the Desert" a few years ago so I bet he used that knowledge of location to bang out this PR piece. Man, I really need to befriend someone at park services to find out what the heck is happening. We have crews coming through all the time. These folks literally stay across the street from me when they're in town and I never seem to find out about it 'til they're gone.

10 years just about EVERYBODY on the planet that can afford a phone will have the same motion picture IQ power we currently have. Best to question "what exactly do I bring to the table when offering video production services?" If your answer is "the camera" you need to start getting really paranoid. Most clients are not going to fret about DXO scores. If that's where your attention lies (and there's nothing really wrong with that) I hope you're aspiring to a much higher echelon of production than I am! I'm pretty close to retirement so my day in the sun with all this stuff is coming to an end. Looks like I'll be riding the imaging technical wave as it crashes onto the beach.

Personally, not going to worry. 98% of the other things happening in production to think about before shadow banding becomes a priority. Like, should I go to bed early so I can get up at 4am and capture 2 hours of footage during sunrise? What's for breakfast? How can I frame my composition to take advantage of backlight? Who has the coffee? Where do I need to be to get the best exposure of that subject? Can the actress doing the supporting role actually help carry this scene? How long is it going to take to get to location? Should I use the 50mm so the shots of the dogs look more flattering even though we're in a tight space? etc. If I'm ever on a production wherein the level of pixel scrutiny you're outlining here is part of the process it sure won't be me thinking about it. That rabbit hole doesn't interest me enough to crawl down it. I'll take a peek into it every now and again, but that's for some other bunny to burrow into. After all, without good footage to begin with, the rest isn't exactly worth thinking about.

Not for me, because they look the same, or are so similar to not matter to my eye. Maybe I missed something more obvious?

With a bit more contrast the image would look "thicker," I think. I wouldn't mind losing detail in those shadows. What's it really buying you anyway? You can also mask the sky to hold some detail there if you wanted to. Still, its a shot of partially backlit colorful buildings on an overcast midday...which isn't going to render wonderfully on any camera, digital or film.

Always try and solve problems before you get to post production.

The only time I get interference is if I don't do a channel scan. I'm really corporate'y with what I'm using mine for. Rarely stretch the distance on them. When I do they seems to go for about 100 yards or so?

So...I've had my Sennheiser G3 trans/receiver for...12 years now? I think that was a good ROI. Just used it again today.

What NLE do you use?

As a teenager my dad's darkroom offered a practical wisdom built from hours of self-inflicted failure. Buying the film and chemicals to develop one's shots, and then having them not "turn out" makes you really pay attention to the technique of achieving a strong image while in the field. The same sentiment the OP has mentioned. In the digital age, the notion that technology -such as bit depth and/or raw- is going to solve problems is not misguided, it's just overstated. I used to think I could save a thin negative at the enlarger. Nope. I could only make it marginally better. If it was a mess already, nothing was going to change that. That's why shooting 8-bit or using an old digital camera, while not ideal, is also not a deal breaker. All that said, it comes back to lighting. Those that artistically manipulate or take advantage of light in their images are simply better at this than those that don't. There's really no better advice than the be good with light when capturing the shot. The curse of the internet is that folks like us can go down rabbit holes of information and then end up applying esoteric solutions to problems of extreme technical nuance, when the fundamental basic issues are the ones that require the actual attention. It's why intuitive shooters and directors like Kendry Ty (8 years ago!) were making something remarkable on consumer gear --while bigger film productions with marginally competent, yet unimaginative, people were making complete crud.

Well, I'd qualify the poll and say that the best IQ value for the $$ in my experience is the LUMIX GX7. I don't know what was going on there, but the images off that damn sensor looked awesome. I suppose anyone that grabbed a BM pocket back in the day for $500 would be able to dispute the $$-to-IQ-value claim, but out of all the cameras I've owned the GX7 always looked wonderful to me.

So here's a simple story: I was in the market to hire a guy about 4 years ago for a video shoot. A shooter contacted me to inquire about the gig, but had almost no experience with motion pictures. He was just getting into video from photography and he asked me if his lowly Pentax, which only did 60p @720 would be okay. His photos showed that he had a great eye for composition and when we talked about the assignment he explained that he was a video neophyte, but was willing and eager to learn. Seemed like a bit of a risk to hire this dude. After all here was a guy shooting on a decidedly not video-centric DSLR and admitting that video wasn't his main thing. After some coaching, both of us reviewing past examples of the job I was hiring him for, and collaborating about what I wanted to see in the footage, we decided to partner up, and off he went. Meanwhile, I simultaneously hired another guy for the same sort of shoot on the opposite side of the country. Dude made sure to tell me more than once what his list of gear included (would you also like to know about his C300 and PL mount lenses? Apparently he was convinced I did) --and how he was a video professional with years of experience. Sure, he knew what I wanted, not a problem; don't even need to discuss it. After watching past examples of the job and assuring me he could do it, off he went. With that narrative set-up you can probably imagine who delivered spot on incredible b-roll shots that were a bit IQ mushy, but captured great scenarios and emotion --and who gave me a pile of shit footage with no cohesiveness or creativity, (plus couldn't even get the horizon level) but sure looked super sharp with great colors. I don't know if any of this is germane to the thread, but... Here's hoping that niche players like aspiring videographer Phil from North Carolina hang in there...and their camera gear supplier does too.

I used to have a 55mm Canon FD f1.2 on a speed booster for my M43 cams... I mean, that's kinda in the ball park. On M43 that would render DOF shallowness like a f1.8 on FF. So that narrow focal plane capability was there if I wanted it. (turns out I really didn't that much) Also had the Voight 42.5mm f.095. Which is a 85mm f1.9 FF equivalent on M43. All decent lens stuff and kinda neat to own. And I'll be honest, having the extra bit of "oomph" that FF gives is nice sometimes, not going to deny it. (I mean, I still have a 5D) But, in my world it's not worth the trade off of exceptional IBIS and some really crazy compact gear...and the shooting flexibility that offers. That small gear flexibility is often overlooked by a lot of videographers, I think. I love going on shoots with modest stuff; a single small satchel camera bag and a tiny camera --then knocking out ridiculous handheld shots that look like they rolled off a jib or camera dolly tracks. I'll take that capability as long as it's available. Other people like piling on a bunch of outboard stuff so much that even a modest DSLR ends up looking like some Panavision rig on a major studio movie production set. That's fine if that's what you want, just not my tempo.

Which is the exact reason I’m on M43. M43 video IQ, IBIS and compactness in tandem are a great combo for my work. I also know what I want in FOV’s so I do the math when I mount a lens. No biggie.

I try to solve this issue by not shooting images that need pushing around too much in post.

Sad day . To find out I’ve only been using parts of my images for years? Bummer.