fuzzynormal

Pfffst. The one thing in life to NOT get pretentious about should be beer. Can't just agree that cheap beer is actually kind of good thing? Can't we agree that good beer is also kind of a good thing?

San Diego county actually ends about 10 miles from my front door. It's a big county that stretches farther east than people realize; from the ocean to the desert. Yes, there are numerous springs all over the mountains and Desert Bighorn Sheep (aka: "borrego" in Spanish) use them as a water source. The springs also create waterfalls in the canyons. Yes, it snows often at higher elevations numerous times during the winter. We can see it from the valley. White mountains with warm and sunny weather. Not so bad. In the summer I go swimming at the local pool when it's 120° outside. It's surreal. You hop out of the pool and the water evaporates so fast you actually feel like you're freezing...in 120° weather. That last about 30 seconds. I once had to dig a trench in my back yard during an August monsoon to prevent flooding from entering my house. Exciting! DYK, BS is a dark sky community? The mountains shield us from SoCal light pollution. During new moon you can see the Milky Way with your naked eye. Astronomy is a big deal out here. You guys probably can't imagine what's it's like out here right now. Perfectly quiet and gently warm now that the sun is shadowed. Light dappling the distant mountains and few magenta clouds wisp'ing through the sky. I'm sort of hoping that the BSFF will become popular simply as a fun vacation spot for filmmakers in the middle of the winter --for L.A. filmmakers and also for those from more inhospitable climates. I mean, I think we're a neat little fest. You can't really get more unpretentious than what we do. Our winter community is a bunch of earnest cinephiles. We aren't a festival for doing deals and networking per se, but we let filmmakers get their film viewed, always, with a full house and it's just a neat environment. I mean, our "snow birds" come from all over the world during January, so the audience is surprisingly a mixed bunch. Also, we don't pre-program our festival. All submitted films run through the gauntlet of our selection committee. We've only pre-programmed TWO films. And that's only because those films were shot here in town. All other films are rated by our committee and pulled directly from FilmFreeway submissions. It's a very egalitarian process. If a filmmaker submits, they have a good chance getting in. Based on passed years it's essentially a 1 to 5 chance. Basically I'm saying people should submit their films. p.s. "No one really knows" sounds like a Donald Trump quote!

Exactly this. The film festival I work with, "The Borrego Springs Film Festival," has pretty much decided our efforts are going to be basic, old-fashioned, and filmmaker centric. We know the viewing experience is evolving away from four-walls and tub of popcorn --but damnit, there's still no better way to watch a film. And there's no better way to watch your film being watched than in a dark room packed with a bunch of people. We successfully offer this. Simple and effective. Some "festivals" can't even offer that fundamental experience! If you're an aspiring filmmaker, getting into festival like ours is worth the effort. Why bother with the projector? The last festival I got into was "online screenings only" (totally missed that on the submission, but they got my dang money) ?

Oh, I don't disagree, but it's an ingredient in a successful recipe. I view it analogous to using a great spice in a dish, but it's not the main component. Rely on it too much over the more important stuff and you're gonna ruin the meal. Anyway, don't mean to hijack a thread. Glad to see budget gear can be used for big-time images. We all know this, but to see it in such accomplishment is always cool.

Well, I'd say it could've looked better with someone more adept at grading, tbh. Obviously, a 5D RAW hack or other RAW cams look freaking awesome when in the right (very patient) hands, though. I wish I could remember the title of the film. I just remember seeing it and thinking it was harsh, sharp, and just ... odd. So much detail, clarity, vibrance that people looked botchy and unnatural. There's a few post-production recipes I use to make people look flattering in interviews and other shots --and this footage was absolutely doing the opposite of that. I do recall reading the filmmakers efforts on the post-process in an interview article. They were dealing with tons of data, eeking out every last drop from the 5dIII, futzing with post for a year, and then when I looked at the final result I felt like they dang near killed themselves for pretty much no good reason. Any chance anyone knows the doc movie I'm thinking about? Point is, RAW's great. It'll help you do a lot of things and give you room to fix mistakes, but if you get what you need in camera, you're pretty good.

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.