fuzzynormal

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.

For an older guy like me, these examples are the reasons I'm a bit loyal to this EOSHD. It's a website, not a marketing "platform." And the way it's run reminds me of the young-information-super-highway-idealism of what the internet had potential to be. Also, I especially like the irony that the title of the website is now an anachronism...in less than a decade. And that titular company is routinely and harshly critiqued here. That's simply something backwardly pure. That would never exist if it had to get filtered through a corporate system; probably would have ad 3 re-branding launches by now if that was the case. EOSHD, I guess, is kind of like visiting an awesome chef-run-restaurant in a town that only has corporate fast-food franchises in it. You can get fed in both, but you can only get a proper meal from one.

Yup, it was a mediocre film and Patty Jenkins certainly did a mediocre job with a mediocre script. Still, I liked what they were trying to do with the antagonist. Different, at least. But that premise? eh. But that's what corporate creations do, sprinkle in bits and pieces of things they hope will expand their audience. It's marketing. Whether it be two females smooching in Star Wars or a male idiot as a bad guy in a woman-super-hero-film. I'm blase' by it, really. The reaction to the film is more interesting than the film. Bad movies come and go all the time. Welcome to modern life. We're all monkeys being pushed around by algorithms. So much so we just had an insurrection here in the USA that was directly aided by such. That's how serious this sort of stuff is. Anyone that liked gritty 70's/80's stuff like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy was probably on board with those types of films being mashed-up with a super-villian character. I was. Pretty much the same sentiment I'm offering. The thing is a lot of people actually want to forget where they came from. Coming from a crap place ain't exactly anything one should want to continue to emulate. I love my small MI hometown for sentimental reasons, but I preferred to leave behind the BS attitudes that are prevalent in that township. Other things I hold onto.

You're kinda in the biz and from Detroit, yeah? As you undoubtedly know, the industry is populated with creatives from meager backgrounds as well as the affluent. I think the main reason you get an ideological skew is simply that in order to succeed in accomplished merit, one has to get the hell off the farm and into a much bigger world. Rural is conservative and homogeneous, Urban is progressive and heterogeneous. People are attracted and then adapt to those environments and expectations. That's human nature. It's true in many industries outside of entertainment. Also, if the big studio movie industry is anything, it's a barometer of popular culture, or at least striving as a business to hit the balance of lowest-common-denominator-appeal. I consider Hollywood creations to be a pretty accurate mirror to who we are; take that as you will. So....movies are trying to get more woke? Guess what, so is global society. Might be annoying and deserve some push back, but there you go. As for DC "tone" whiplash, when has it been anything but? Not only is it all over the map, they're usually on the north and south poles of a Mercator projection.

And now you see the fruit of this reality.