fuzzynormal

Ummmm....

That's fair enough. I got seduced by early LUMIX cams and then Olympus IBIS. The kit size of smaller gear suits me. These cams work well for my jobs, but I do still have a soft spot for the FF cameras.

I use them for stills too. No complaints here. My Oly 2.8 pro lens does render a little more detail if one is pixel peeping, but nothing I've noticed to be remarkable compared to 2.8 on the Voights. Anyway, this is the most EOSHD'y of EOSHD topics. The great debate among camera nerds. As if sensor size one way or another really matters to people that actually shoot stuff that gets used for any real purpose. I mean, I have footage from my old XH-A1 that rivals most of the footage I shot this year. I certainly have my own preferences for shooting FF and like it, but ultimately it's not going to make a big difference on what is shot and deliver on a job.* Just curious, but aside from something needed in extreme low-light situations, can anyone here provide an example where what they did on M43 or FF would ultimately matter a hulluva lot to the client? *to the people I usually gig for anyway

Wide open I don't like so much. I typically set mine on a 1.4 - .95 split. That looks good to me. No doubt FF and FF lenses have a lot of advantages, (I exploit them myself) but it's not like one sensor option is wildly more impressive than the other.

As far as that goes, I used to shoot FD lenses on a cheap $100 Chinese speedbooster. I always liked the look. Clean but not pristine. If you want to get away from the "digital" look, that could be one ingredient in the recipe; worked for me. For those of you shooting manual glass it's an inexpensive way to go, FWIW.

They're great. I use the 25 and 42.5. I have a job coming up wherein I need to go wider FOV and I'll turn to the Voightlander brand yet again by buying the 10.5. When I'm shooting without Voightlander lenses I tend to look at that footage and say, "Meh." And, yeah, I'm invested now into M43 glass. Paying more in lenses for shallow DOF and M43 is annoying, but it is what it is. Still, I do love FF with a wide open (and cheap) fast lens for interviews. Low soft lighting with lots of bokeh and 3D pop. It's a look that's just special...and very easy to accomplish. So there's a pragmatic appreciation for it as well when one's trying to do a lot on a production with limited options.

!

Maybe ask the Egyptian dentist that responded to my OP ;-) Yeah, this was from years ago, but it's the Polish movie "Ida." Coincidental that this should surface again as I'm the DP on a S16 film shoot later this month and we're going to do static shots pretty much the whole way.

Always seems like a good idea until you try it. Looks like I'm 1 and 2. Although...what's the difference?

You got it, and "prosumer" is my end of the pool. More and more kids are peeing in it these days, and I don't expect that to stop anytime soon.

I sort of agree with this. However, the guy doesn't give a rip about IQ, he just went for it. He's obviously a capable director based on his legacy, but obviously he's also a shit shooter. So then, considering all that, what's more important? That he did it or that he did it poorly? Look, I shot and edited a PBS thing a year ago. Didn't write/direct. It looked pretty good ... but it was also as boring as a month old turd. I'd rather watch whatever tacky melodramatic silliness William Friedkin decided to make than rewatch any of the episodes featuring my work. These are the existential musings for many filmmakers. Do you get in your own way by adhering to the demanding technical strictures of the craft, or do you just not care so much and get 'er done, focusing on more important things like storytelling? (or in Bill's case here, an apparent trashy cash grab, coasting on his notoriety) It's not easy for many of us, but just deciding to be creative however you can is honestly the best way forward.

Some sort of FZ model looks like. I've had a couple of these over the years as backup cams on my travel shoots. Too much magenta.

What kind of filmmaker thinks he can just grab a LUMIX camera and shoot a film? Don't people know you can't make a movie without accurate skin tones, non-oversharpened footage, good camera work, and a real microphone? Somebody should tell this so-called "filmmaker." He's obviously in way over his head! ;-) https://youtu.be/jpjRQokeQNo

More than do-able. Recommended if the FF route is absolutely the way you want to go. FF isn't as big of a deal to me anymore, but I do understand why it's nice to have. A used 5dII and 3 primes is more than enough. I had this set-up for years and made tons of stuff. If you can't make it work with that, do something else, like kiosk sales for cell phone covers at your local mall.

The 5DII is a fun camera, but, as said, FF ain't no big thing. A GH2 with a cheap Chinese speed booster and 3 primes could be acquired for much less than $1100. But, don't want to dissuade you. You can also get a 5dII and 3 cheap primes (say, nikkor or pentax) for around $1100 too. I had a 5DII for a loooong time. It's a nice camera all around. FWIW, personally, I don't like working with ML and RAW, but others like doing the intense tweaking and workflow.

Drugs kill! As well as avenging vigilantes. Just say no kids.

Disagree. So did this guy and he shared his anecdotal story to millions of people on YT. Yeah, he's doing it for views, obviously, but that doesn't mean the situation shouldn't be revealed. He exposes the fact that Apple, at this time, can not readily supply parts for a model in their Pro line. That might be valuable information to someone. It's not as big of a deal as some make it seems as his situation is very unique. Realistically, who's gonna do the same nonsense he did that creating the dilemma? However, nothing really wrong with him ranting about it, I say.

I think maybe it's better to just check on whatever camera one has to see how changing up shutter speed renders the motion image. There's a lot of other variables that determine how a motion image looks from camera to camera, so just experimenting with the gear one has is the best bet. Eyeball it and do what looks right to you.

I used a manual Nikkor 50mm f1.4 as my interview lens for the longest time. On a Canon 5D first and then speed-boosted-adapted onto M43 cams. While you can see some quality gap between a cheap "dumb" Chinese speed-booster and Metabones I really felt like it wasn't enough a a difference for the $$. That's me. Not sure how particular you are. So, cheap booster bought on ebay cost, what, less than 100 bucks?

Don't worry about it. That happens all the time.

I also got to say, when the major IQ difference is 3 stops of DR between the best camera on the market and a consumer camera, a Gh5 kind of is worthy of being considered a legitimate imaging device. Not because it should be used in place of an Alexa, but because it could be used in a budget production --and it wouldn't be the weak link. You can qualify my opinion because all the movies I grew up watching and loving typically were shot with film stock that only had, realistically, 12 stops of DR and most of that went out the window once crappy prints got distributed to the crappy movie theaters I used to go to. So that's my subjective background. Know that I'm a nostalgic fan of beat-up analog stuff. Therefore, modern gear amazes me and I tend to look at everything these days in consumer cameras as being well beyond good enough. And FWIW, I'm shooting a short next month on S16 and Vision3 stock. Not because it's going to have the best IQ, but because it's going to have a unique IQ.

How did you know I had camo sweat pants? At any rate, anyone can do whatever they wanna. Some like to strive to acquire what they consider the best gear for them, and perhaps they'll use motion cadence results to determine that. Your tests are good for illustrating those details. I'm not here to say what's right or wrong. Bottom line: Gear cheap. It make pictures good. Many ways things be done.

World class DP's are not wrong. They've earned the right to squint hard at their images and navel gaze about 'em. They're upper echelon craftspeople that pixel peep because they can/should and have opinions that are relied upon for big budget productions. I, on the other hand, am using a consumer camera that cost less that the Twizzler supply at their craft services table. And, even then, the camera I'm using creates images that look ridiculously amazing. The gap between what I have on my computer desk and what Roger Deakins is using is so close that even I sometimes have a hard time telling the difference. And even if I could readily tell the difference, would it really matter anyway at my level? For me the answer is "no." I'm blessed with great cheap gear. If it's not perfect it doesn't bother me all that much, honestly. I just work with it and make it the best I can. Slowing the shutter is one trick I've used that I really like. I dunno. I'm a guy that likes noticeable motion blur. Which, BTW, the tessive filter appears, to my eye, to allow. So, a little more motion blur from a slower shutter just looks kind of "analog" to me --and that's neat-o. I suggest that if anyone is bummed about how their camera renders motion cadence at a 180 shutter, try slowing it down a touch. You might appreciate the results. You may not. But experimenting is allowed!

The way I tweak motion cadence is to just slow down the shutter a bit more than "normal." I'm not convinced that the 180 degree rule is terribly important for hybrid video cams, y'know?

FWIW, I've done more mission critical work with a dual mic setup running 2-channel split. Last example that comes to mind was for a woman that was a soft talker but would cackle, very loudly, at her own jokes. This was to be part of the video --so we knew we needed that compensation going into the shoot. I often do similar with a lav plus shotgun overhead (as do most people). I don't know this kit, but the Sen.G3 has both transmitter and receiver level control. Dialing in the mic level and signal level to send to a Gh5 is easy to get a thick source of audio. What kind of level control is offered with the Saramonic gear?