fuzzynormal

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?

Okay, this is what I do to get decent audio on substandard pre's. Any legit audio guy is going to read this and get cold sweats, but here it goes regarding my use of Sen.G3 and a Gh5, with the Gh5 set at -12db for recording: I just run my levels "hot." You can go into the red and it'll stay clean...for the most part. It gives the quieter voice parts a nice thickness and gets the levels as far off the floor as possible. --To the point where if the interview subject explodes with a big loud laugh or yell it actually clips the signal a little. Knowing how far into the top you think you need to go is the tricky part. Setting levels in the "risk" zone is okay by me. iZotope's audio Rx can compensate somewhat for clipping in post. (post?!?) (yes, post) Then, when editing, a modest application of compression helps smooth stuff out. Sometimes I'll even add a limiter if I'm in a hurry. When I'm more pedantic I'll ride the audio levels manually in the edit. Bumping -2 or +2 on a voice to keep the levels consistent. These are the trade offs I need to make in order to work with a small simple setup for run/gun. It breaks the rules for sure... and, yeah, nothing is going to sound better than great pre's on a great mic. But I'm working without that luxury, so I made up a different recipe to cope. There you have it. One anecdotal bit of nonsense from me. tl/dr answer: what IronFilm said. "make sure your signal coming in is strong enough you don't need to lean heavily on...pre amps at all."

I use the Sennheiser ew 100-ENG G3-A Wireless Mic System plugged right into the Gh5; mostly with the supplied lav mic, but occasionally with a shotgun mic overhead. The overhead mic is nothing special. Just an Azden SGM 2x. Sounds decent for talking vocals. None of that gear is great or terrible, but I find it does the job. I do apply a bit of compression and limiting on the audio track in post.

Or an Olympus. FWIW, when I was shooting with my trusty old EM5II I would often think, "How in the hell did I ever shoot stuff before this!?" ;-)

It's been awhile since I shot video on cassette tape:

When I first read the post title I figured it was a zombie thread from 2009. The demise of Apple for professionals has been happening for 25 years now. I guess sooner or later they may get around to it.

White bean soup anyone? Gotta do something with these Easter ham leftovers.

As a doc director/producer/shooter I can agree with this...and also disagree with this. A good shooter can and will find the best angle for light even in bad lighting situations. Changing the perspective of a shot for better light is always an option. It's not always easy, but that's part of the craft. Making good cinematic decisions under the gun is doable. So, you don't control the light, but you do control how the camera sees it.

Regardless, your video has a timelessness to it. 1965 or 2015, who knows or cares? (and Ornette Coleman? cool) Looks awesome as it really doesn't feel like video or film, but something in between.

Szczęśliwy smaczne jajko wielkanocne! (is that close?)

Something to be said about projects where one's making the most with the least. There ends up being a certain mojo to it and we remember that stuff. Sometimes for better, sometimes for worse! But those films got a energy to 'em. For me, my thought process was always, "well, it's only going to look half way decent no matter what we do, so let's not worry too much about the camera and just have fun getting the shots as best we can." It was sort of liberating in a way. I've shown this before here, but it's a good example of just saying, "screw it, let's just make the damn movie." Shot in 2008 on an XH-A1; not that it matters as we abused and tortured all the shots in post: Was anyone here shooting stuff with a DOF adapter and a cheap video camera around this time? I find films with those adapters intriguing.

As some of us are want to do, we wax poetic about older technology, (I guess we're entering the phase wherein old gear gets us misty eyed) I submit a quick video I shot 9 years ago on a XH-A1. Anyone else have stuff from a decade past that you still like to watch and like to share?

Local multi-plex for me with the StarWars, but I did watch "Corvette Summer" a year later at the Twilight Drive in. Annie Potts in scuba flippers, yeah. A double feature with "The Return of the Pink Panther"

The novelty of getting farmer to let you do it in his cornfield or next to his cornfield would be pretty great. Gonzo the thing and make the craptacular-ness of it all part of the fun. Accept film only under 5 minutes so you can watch a bunch of 'em in 4 hours. Suggest charging 5 bucks a submission if only to offset the costs of throwing a halfway decent party with snacks and beers for one night. I'd imagine you might get around 200 or so submissions on FilmFreeway. Maybe at that low price a few more. Maybe give a 50% discount to regional filmmakers. The film festival I'm part of runs a 25% discount during the 1st week of "early bird" submissions. Basically, it's a $15 submission fee 'til Monday. Pretty cheap. If any of you want to submit, it's a great festival simply because the location is awesome. Here's the festival: https://filmfreeway.com/BorregoSpringsFilmFestival And here's the code: "25WORMS" Any festival, especially a small one, takes a bunch of work though to make it special for the filmmakers. If you're wanting to make it nice for those accepted in the fest and those attending, pretty much assume you'll be working a full time gig for a few months before the event. Just wait 'til you're on the other side of the curtain and you'll get wise to why festival do things a certain way. Don't feel like you can't break the mold though!

I do like a good TV series; anthology series especially. More like a novel whereas a movie is like a short story. I'm with you there. Mother was wonderfully bonkers and metaphorically crazy. More of that ambitious stuff for me.

I'd also suggest considering the later. Appreciating another's opinion, if not their actual taste in a film, is a way to get turned onto cinema you might never otherwise see.

If you're making an honest documentary, a director lets the events go where they go and then you build a narrative out of what happened. A good director can anticipate the shots needed and collect moments that will ultimately make sense. Still, salvage ethnography is always a challenge because so many biases of an outsider director will move the story in ways of which they're probably not even aware. Aside from that, however, the whole process is affected by the process of assertively observing, (which is what you have to do to get shots with a camera) but that doesn't mean valid compelling truths will not exist in the footage and eventual narrative. So it's been since the dawn of the genre. I mean, "Nanook of the North" is almost a complete fiction, but there's still something legitimate about it.

In defense of critics: Real ones don't really exist much anymore, so let's not throw the whole profession under the bus because the internet content machine has diluted the craft. A good critic is always going to be subjective, of course, but they do offer legitimate wisdom and insight regardless of their personal preferences. For instance, I loved reading Roger Ebert's criticisms about film, but thought his taste about certain filmmaking was way too generous.

FWIW, I like suspension of disbelief in da movies...until I don't.

If it's on Netflix in Europe, I'll just VPN that and give it a look-see. (Sorry Paramount)

Just confirm so I'm not misunderstanding: ...it's on Netflix in Europe right now but in theaters in the US?