fuzzynormal

Typically, for me, it's confusing when people assume impressive IQ requires being shot on RAW or some other "fat" codec. Great images come from production design, set design, cinematography, and lighting...even storytelling context. The thing is, you can easily capture that with 8-bit. RAW allows more latitude in grading, but if the material is captured right to begin with, you're good. I have stuff I shot in 2010 on thin 8-bit that looks considerably better than some stuff I shot last month on ProRes. Heck, I have HDV that is more impressive. Depends on what and how you're shooting. I wonder if EOS member Danell would agree or disagree to that? I'm reminded of some indy doc that came out a year or so ago, and it was lauded as a neat achievement because the whole thing was shot and captured with hacked RAW -- and that's saying something when it comes to doc filming. And it was cool that a small crew could do that...but then when you actually saw what they shot and how they colored it, one couldn't help but scratch their head and think, "well, why did you go through all that trouble then?" It looked terribly average. Bad lighting and odd grading. A better shooter and colorist, even if they only had 8-bit to work with, could be wildly more accomplished than what those guys did. FWIW, I just shot with the FS7. I liked it enough, but I wasn't doing anything demanding of it. For the task I put it to, it didn't look much better or worse than my GH5. And, actually, in it's standard color profile I thought the highlight roll off of the FS7 actually looked rather unimpressive.

Not me. Still a manual focus guy.

The easy analogy is 96khz. Not because having it is bad, but simply because 48khz is more than adequate. 4K vs. 1080. Same thing. Honestly, I still feel like my old GX7 delivered better IQ than my GH5. That's kuz almost all I do is delivered in 1080. The 4K GH5 can technically "do more," but ultimately how does it matter in the final deliverable? Same thing goes for my old EM5II. It's an inferior IQ camera, but if it gets me what I need then it's very much a "better" camera in certain instances. As are discussions about mic pre-amps or mic frequency response.... yet they're vital to people successfully plying such craft. Those that delve into the minutiae and wisely use it to their advantage will do so. Other people will be chasing specs and numbers.

Keep in mind when it comes to the Sundance (or any other big film festival) worthwhileness debate: causation vs correlation.

Sure build it "big" but export it at your desired resolution. In your case, I suppose a sequence of 1200x1000 might be a good bet. If you're making something that will ultimately be small, adapt your text for readability. Preview your sequence while you're making it at 25%, for instance.

tbh, I'm not so sure about that. Getting in is great, but to do so usually flows through some rather well established industry networks used by Sundance. If you're in, it's typically because you're already in the game or are being groomed. Like most big festivals, they recruit-curate almost all their program. In other words, open submissions have a chance to get programmed, but it's a long shot. Yes, that too. There's plenty of camping and hiking that make our BSFF weekend a fun get-away in addition to being a good fest. I like the snow in this shot, but the real view from that position is 90° counter clockwise. BTW, we offer a sponsored trip to here, Fontes Point, during the event. Sunrise from this vantage is really something else.

Well, none really, but that's not the only reason to go to good film festivals. They can be fun too. I know ours is a pretty good time. Simple, maybe... but fun.

So many film festivals out there are such baloney. The worst are the ones wherein your film gets "selected" but never screens. A close second are the ones that screen their selections, but decide to do it in a conference room on a DVD player. Many out there are nothing more than money grabs. Some doofus will set up a "festival" on FilmFreeway --and then never does anything irl. It's just online nonsense. As they say, "Pics or it didn't happen." I've entered 'em all as a doc filmmaker. Been there and done that. And because I've been burned, frustrated by the process, and want to do it right, I now help run a small legitimate film festival in my SoCal hometown. If you're interested in submitting, our "Early Bird" window is still open and here's a discount code: PROMOBSFF33. It's basically a cheap $14 submission fee right now. Once you're in, and if you attend, we go out of our way to try and make the experience a special one. Check out the BSFF here. You'll see all the films we've programmed over the years and you can even delve into our blog for more info. It's all there. If you think it's a good fit, send in your work. As for the tech question, many will take only 1080p. DCP or otherwise. You'd probably have to letter box to fit. I know that's what we do for the BSFF. We've also screened 4K files starting in 2018, but I think we're still kind of the exception.

It's a cheap one. Zomei. Adds hue to the mix, but whatever, one lives with it. I can shoot outside in the sun at f.95 with it. No hard stops, but that's okay as I'm often adjusting exposure during a shot (when one tries to capture candid doc stuff, the camera just keeps rolling). My issue is the extra layers of glass really does flare alot and it does knock down other details. But that's true on whatever VND you use, or any stacking of glass. Yeah, it's a GH5, for whatever that's worth, with (mostly) a Voightlander 42.5mm. BTW, I too used B+W ND's a lot in the past, and wanted to go that way, but just couldn't get my hands on them fast enough for an upcoming shoot I had last year, so settled for the Zomei.

This is a free video I did for some friends of mine. I used a VND on 90% of the shots. You can easily see the issues it creates. Just the flaring alone is annoying. On the other hand, I shot everything in about 6 hours and had lots of shots to choose from. Which, for these types of low-budget-fast-moving situations, is much better than structured shooting. https://vimeo.com/275498959/9ad0d5cf95

I always considered making something similar, but smaller, on the backside of a lens adapter. Or, I also thought it would be fun to design an honest to goodness lens turret. Old school cool and functionality. Which sounds like a good idea, but gets impractical with larger sensors Some Chinese thing came out a few years ago (or maybe it was a kickstarter campaign). You'd slide 52mm ND's into a magnetic slot of the lens adapter. Pop in and out whatever you want behind the lens. All interesting "solutions," but I just really got spoiled with VND. I hate the IQ concessions and flares, but a lot of what I do is captured so fast I have no option for any sort of down time. I accept the negative because of the positives it offers. Funnily enough, and as a contradiction, I almost always refuse to shoot with variable lenses. I stick to my primes. Although, full disclosure, I do tend to pick one focal length and shoot the entire project with it.

Yup, they're click tracking the performance for studio recording lay-in after the fact. Nice technique for doing live music video stuff if your performers are skilled enough for it. I once did a "live" music video with a rock band across multiple performances in multiple cities. This was without click track. However, the drummer was so solid on recreating his tempo, I could pull up to 20 second excerpts that would hold sync to their studio recording. Mind you it was through different days, weeks, and "moods" of the venue. Kind of amazing, really. The one time I asked him to actually use a click track while playing and he couldn't do it!

I've become way too run n gun to NOT use VNR, but this is what I don't like about em.

Can confirm. Same on mine.

I did a series of docs a year ago recording wireless audio onto a H1. All audio was recorded "out-board" and, in post, the H1 audio and cam-audio tracks were synced with Plural Eyes. The Zoom and audio receiver were carried in my pockets. This allowed me to be rather incognito since that extra gear was off the camera. More importantly, this also allowed me to not be tethered to the camera via the headphone cable. Liked it better that way; no weird boxes, rubber bands, or wires on top of my camera --or wires running to the camera. That would be my recommendation, assuming you're willing to do a little post-audio-sync work. You'll get better audio using the H1 recording anyway, and your camera will have a little more freedom when out there actually doing stuff. (I love those old Nikkor lenses, btw. That's the 24mm, right?)

For "Man on the Street" stuff, it makes perfect sense. IQ isn't terribly important. Even with "pro" cameras and cameramen, if you watch local news broadcast you'll soon discover IQ is the least of their worries.

I shot 6 documentaries on the DMC‑GX8. The 4K IQ to my eye is impressive. The camera is pretty cheap used so you'd have some cash left over to get a decent zoom lens for it.

Teal and orange, baby. Teal and orange. We'll always have our mid 'aughts Teal and Orange.

Ha! I can imagine a wedding video made using the creepy doll montage from Man With A Movie Camera. The bride could be posed in various storefronts, ending with a scary doll that is riding a stationary bicycle using the bride's legs.

Most cameras covered here on EOSHD are for people that own their own gear on a tight budget and want to do as much as they can with cheap stuff. Pro cams like a C700FF are nice and all, but not the vibe of the website. It's confusing since the site is branded with "EOS," but that's a legacy quirk from the halcyon and heady Canon 5DII days. (woa, 10 years ago now) This site evolved with the market, while Canon somewhat abandoned low-end video. So, you have a website with a name that doesn't really jibe anymore, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Yup. I don't know the OP from anything, and maybe I'm projecting from the wisdom of my own experiences, but the original question seems like a naive one on a few levels. Maybe I'm wrong! No offense OP. Hope you were successful!

Imho, this is the most straightforward and practical advice in the comment thread. Also telling in that it has nothing to do with the gear...which is typically the case on most successful projects. Wonder what happened with the OP's shoot.

I get the "false-equivalency" argument. I shoot M43 all the time. And, if you look reeeeeely hard enough, I do think you can tell a difference, in aggregate, between M43 and FF. The telltales of FF shooting can be evident if you know where to look. For instance, usually a smoother bokeh and sharper focus with shallow DOF. A f2 through modern glass on a FF sensor, for example, can look "cleaner" in a way that M43@f.95 does not. These advantages, I think, are nit-picky though. The differences are subtle. It's often really hard to tell! And if a skillful someone is shooting m43 with fast glass, you're probably not going to know the difference or pay attention enough to care in the first place. I'm shooting a doc right now with the Voightlanders on the GH5 and I'd put it up against anything I've shot with my FF Canon equipment. If you're shooting M43 or FF, your viewer doesn't really care. Are you a good shooter? That's what matters. All that said, and like I've mentioned before, I still prefer to shoot FF on a fast 50mm prime for interviews. It's just easier to set up a shot 'kuz of space and lighting --and you can really throw the background out of focus with a f1.2. That forgives a lot of sins in corporate locations/environments. Hey, I'm a practical guy. OTOH, when shooting interviews with my M43 gear I tend to use my 42.5mm lens @f1.2 --and the DOF is wildly shallow and intense too. The flatness of the "portrait" FOV is a nice look unto itself. One just needs more physical space in the room to make that happen. Also, you end up farther away from the interview subject, which can impair any intimacy if you're trying to create such a thing. My decisions tend to be less about opticals and much more about other considerations. Freeing your self from the dogmas of "this vs. that" with gear is a big step to make. I encourage everyone to make it ASAP.

I'd only get one if I was constantly doing corporate stuff and needed to make the client feel like they were getting their money's worth. That's a big "if," but I've been there. I hired a guy with a GH4 a few years back simply because he could make it look fancy. Matte box! Rails! Oooooooooo.

"hey guys...and if these tablets pleasest thou, yay, may thouest not forget to like and subscribe?" Anyway, Liam's a midwest guy, correct? DVD still goes a long way in the fly-over states, especially if you're angling towards anyone GenX or older. The thing you need to keep in mind is that if you're gonna go around and hustle your wares in the flesh, you have GOT to be good at it --and that means enjoying doing that sort of thing. If you don't like it, you're just going to be wasting your time.