fuzzynormal

I'll probably shoot it with a variable ND @f2.8; depends on the time of day and location, really. Would rather shoot it "clean" but the variable ND might be necessary depending on the situation. Not really worried about it performing well enough though --even through filters. Trying to figure out what to actually film is the next step. Should be an interesting challenge just to shoot something in general, as the focal length is going to be kind of long.

Just realized my wife has an old Helios-44-2 from her Zenit-E 35mm camera. The glass is a bit of a loose wobbly thing, but all I need for it is a M42-M43 adapter and I'll be good to go. I think I'll put it on the GH1 I have buried in the closet and see how it goes. Need to find something to film now.

"It isn't the cinema of human beings." He's right, literally.

I'll do it. Used to have a J9 years back, but sold it. Time to get back into some funky lenses.

I just like Oly cams. Even though they don't get you excited on the spec sheet, when you use one it just makes a difference (for me). It's not easily explainable. I just always chalk it up to this: it's why someone likes a certain car over another similar model in class. There's always some collection of intangibles that add up to a sum greater than the parts. Some machines just harmonize with ones tastes and desires.

FWIW, if someone told me I had to shoot a movie on an x-pro2, I'd be perfectly okay with that.

https://youtu.be/VujCOwa89ug

Xpro-2 is a fixed lens OVF with overlay guidelines and info if you want it. It’s a cool novelty. The thing I like about OVF is that is allows you to take in the whole scene in front of you as it’s a pretty wide view Whenlooking though the lens via EVF it’s kind of “tunnel vision,” which is good for some stuff too.

Easiest solution: Edit with proxies and you can use just about any computer. “Just about any computer” will allow you to keep your budget very low.

OTOH, I think it would be a good exercise to show how creating a watchable video doesn't necessarily require high IQ. But, yeah, that doesn't really fit the vibe of this forum, does it?

Yeah, and in my corner of the world, at my economic level, that's pretty much all I could afford to attend. So for me, a love/hate relationship with film image IQ. You can see remastered films look glorious, (anyone seen Gone With the Wind in a modern theatre? My god!). But then I remember film looking like absolute shit too. Film is the IQ king, but film also managed to be the pauper. "Rode hard and put away wet" is an apt 19th century metaphor. You could destroy a beautiful animal by mistreating it. Anyway, point being, you would have to seriously agree to degrade IQ for this challenge suggestion --in order to make it a real challenge.

I still rent and watch SD video on Amazon streaming because it's $1.00 cheaper AND there's no way my eyes can tell the difference from the opposite end of the room.

I think people would be surprised if they ever went back in time and watched the projections of most movies on the film circuit. The mangled prints that were presented in budget movie houses were ridiculous. Equivalent to 480p would probably be an improvement. Growing up in the Rust Belt and going to sad $1 movie shows was my ideal. I loved it. You really can't appreciate how terrible the IQ was. And that was the movie house. The analog recordings made at home were horrible! BTW, 864x486 is what I still deliver as draft previews to my corporate clients. They don't pixel peep. They just want the content they paid for. Also, if you want something akin to a VHS dub recorded in SLP mode (what almost every 80's kid bootlegging films watched at home on their crappy VCR's and CRT's) you'd need something like 480x270 at .2 Mbps...probably less, honestly. How about 320x180 at .1Mbps? That would be a real challenge!

Andy Kaufman Jerry Lawler Roddy Piper Bob Heenan Jimmy Heart Rick Flair Mick Foley

Not that it matters to anyone, but my brother’s and I launched into video production back in 1985 when my dad brought home a Sears VHS camcorder. How he did that on a blue collar paycheck I’ll never know. What did we do with this awesome blessing? Produced wrastlin’ videos. Hundreds of them. Story arcs, reoccurring character fueds, the whole bit. My role was the interviewer “Mystical Marvin,” and I modeled the character after Mean Gene —with a little bit of Koko B. Ware and The Million Dollar Man for my occasional wrastlin’ appearances. Good times. So RIP, Harvey, owner, executive producer, and camera supplier of the LBWF! Still talking about you all these years later.

That dude’s a freaking genius.

Use it a TON when doing corporate because the clients like it. Otherwise, when I have the leeway, regular speed is default mode. It is nice to bust it out for sentimental dramatic moments in a doc. But you need to be judicious with it, just like drone shots.

All Variable ND’s will do something funky to your image. Can’t be helped. But, you can decide if the trade off is worth it. For me, running and gunning, the answer is “okay, let’s do it” The ease of grabbing exposure quickly and getting the shot far outweighs a slight color cast or odd lens flare. I’d rather a better option, but there’s really not one, imho, when shooting on a hybrid cam and lenses.

Yeah, I did this and the final movie was a mess and I didn't like it. Not because of technical choices, but because I started shooting without a shot list, just a generic story line. Sometimes you capture stuff that's compelling, other times it just never really gels. Went into it hoping it might flow together somehow and I'd get lucky. Nope. I chalk it up to my wife and I not really being "into it" once boots were on the ground. We were crew and cast, so it just went sideways from the start as we both don't really like being on camera. So, no dialog, no nat sound, only one crazy lens (pentax a110 f2.8 with an adapter that light leaked), started with music or soundscapes you've never worked with and then was shooting something to match the music, no scouting, found locations that looked cool and used them. Whew. I can't even go watch the thing now 'kuz it's so cringy to me. Learned a lot about myself and the wife though!

I always wondered if I would ever be able to laugh at a 9/11 joke.

Ha! You should have been around in the early 80's to get a glimpse of what that same sentiment meant to viewers back then. First I recall hearing about how things were getting screwed up was when it came to "Hill Street Blues," I guess. That was a popular TV show that embraced more chaotic camera movement. But, man, talk about tame by today's standards. Of course, a similar attitude was prevalent when French New Wave came about and it punched the industry in the mouth. I say no rules. Play with the thing. That's what creatives are supposed to do. The tools of the craft allow for a heck of a lot of stretch, so pull and see what happens.

I’m really into listening to Bob Wills’ again. Can’t really explain why, just am.

If your subject is a distance from the camera, wide angle lenses are deep focus anyway. Even so, if the DOF is somehow too shallow for you, stop down.

A used Sigma 10-20mm?

Are you American? If so, you can certainly write off just about everything reasonable as business related. If you get audited you'll have to justify it to the govmint though and they may not agree.