fuzzynormal

Ooo, fun. Gotta get this on my wife's x-pro. Will make a great b-camera for interviews.

Crop and clean, or do a re-shoot. Unless you can't afford it, definitely do the reshoot. School of hard knocks, baby.

Quick test: record that line under a blanket. If it sounds a lot better, it's a baffling issue and you're recording in a room that's too live. Deaden it a bit.

That's fine and all. What could happen and what probably will happen with the USA internet is ridiculous. I'm speaking anecdotally about my subjective opinion about how it all fits in my life. Damn straight people are getting manipulated every day. There's a whole deeper discussion about free will and how our perception of that is constantly, and easily, controlled by these big biz'nezz-ez. The ability of online companies to emotionally sway people is fascinating...and as I sad, insidious. I no longer consider the internet a safe playground. Haven't for about 15 years. And it's always getting a bit worse. Also, you can't fix stupid -- you take advantage of it ---which is why companies that want to make a ton of money turn to those people first to acquire it. But, like I said, I could just pull the plug on it and improve my life. What's stopping me though??

You know what? Yeah, it's a bit stupid and unfair. Egalitarian is better than segregation. But there's a silver lining. I'll play contrarian real quick. It's a bit of an outlier type of attitude I suppose, but here it goes: The older I get the absolute LESS I want to deal with corporate nonsense. When they segregate me from their mainline of "content" I'll just roll without it. Good lord, it's all mostly a pile of nonsense anyway. Can't stream Netflix? Ah well. Good, that'll save me 40 minutes looking for a mediocre film to watch and then 2 hours doing so. I'll just read that book I've been ignoring for 10 months. Seriously, the more ubiquitous the internet becomes the more annoyingly insidious. I could use an industry imposed firewall. I can tell you with complete honesty, if my access to the internet turned into 56Kpbs dial-up tomorrow then I'd be okay with it. I'd consider it a f'in' blessing. I swear to God it would IMPROVE my quality of life, not diminish it. Too much internet is not helping me be a better person. Full stop. My mesolimbic dopamine pathway has been turned into an Elon Musk hyperloop by this beast. Just getting off Twitter and Facebook would save me. Seriously, I know in my bones that I'm going to be lying on my deathbed someday with this running through my head, "Jeeze, way too much time online, wtf was I thinkiiiiiiiiinnnnng... gasp...ack..." Look, I'm older. I lived an interesting life without this stuff before, enjoyed that lifestyle, and I kind of want to do it again, tbh. Those with non-stop high speed don't know what they're missing. Stop looking down at your phones! You're wandering onto my lawn, get the hell off it you young whippersnappers.

I'm gonna hook a fancy smartdevice up to one of those old Letus FF lens adapters. That'll freak people out when I tell em my film was shot with a "phone"

I'm waiting on the E-M5III too... Then I'll be DONE. No more GAS.

Knock yourself out. Take those awesome specs and actually film something interesting. That's what it's there for.

FWIW, just in general, I've been quite underwhelmed with Pany's implementation of Dual IS from other lenses as well. A big fat "meh."

Well, let's not to say the overarching concept is worthless. Perhaps it's poorly made in this instance, but a delve into the darker tendencies of human psyche is often compelling, obviously. Most motion picture entertainment in general is ultimately about "man's inhumanity to man."

I've used Fuji for gigs. Decent usability. Not great. Some quirks. That sums up all hybrid cameras, really. Nothing is perfect. But, Fuji is making a competitive camera. Nothing wrong with that. If you're in the market, check it out.

Dance can cure you of Zombism! Thats a great concept, right?

We did our little schlock horror romp in 2009 with the XH-A1. No complaints. Stills here if you're curious. I duno. Seems to hold up fine for what it is. Certainly was good enough. It's just a damn camera after all. As a person on a film festival selection committee all I can say is that I share such a sentiment. Man, I have to watch a lot of movies. These days most stuff looks technically decent IQ-wise. It's rare to see a filmmaker with a unique storytelling or visual "voice" however. There's a lot of film festival movies that are adequate. Not many that are awesome...or that even have some sort of juice to them. For example, I liked this particular film, and my colleagues on the selection committee hated it. But, it's got a little something going by perverting the horror tropes and is pretty creative, I think, in how it tells its story. Finding something like that is so much more important than how the image holds up.

The notion of this thread is wonderful. Exploitation B-movies are something to love if you have the sensibility to tolerate it. Failed earnestness is compelling. Some filmmakers (like me and my friends around a decade ago) have employed "ironic" mimicry for affect... barely making a comptent movies ourselves! But, when it's just a legitimately incompetence fueled dumpster file, man, that's awesome. I'm a member of a film festival and this year we're screening an utterly crap-tacular film by one of the most inept filmmakers I've ever seen. Ed Wood stuff. He's one of those guys where he's so bad it's good. He's actually legendary among cinifiles that follow horrible exploitation b-movies. His sensibilities are so un-pc it's embarrassing. The reason it's in our festival is 'kuz he's local and shot some scenes in our community and he knows the committee chairman. Be that as it may, it's still such a piece of nonsense that it's going to reflect poorly on our festival and we'll take an embarrassing hit for screening it. Filmfests are always political. Regardless, no one goes into a "legit" filmfest expecting to see such blatant inadequacy on screen. To give you an idea how shitty this movie is, he wrote a third of the film specifically to revolve around bad 16mm stock footage. He shot that footage for one of his movies in 1979. He's literally been making this movie for the better part of 4 decades. On the other hand, there's a film in our fest made by a 17 year old that would make y'all poop your pants in shame it's so visually miraculous.

Having a really good prime lens probably matters more than the camera, TBH. Especially for portraits. Being a good portrait photographer is mostly about the relationship of shooter and subject --and the photographer's ability at the craft. Anyone that thinks the camera is the most important piece of the portrait puzzle, well... I'd just have to up and disagree with 'em, that's all.

Any FF camera with a fast 85mm lens would be the best option. However, FWIW, my nephew shot my wedding with a GM1 and the Oly 45mm f1.8; pix turned out better than the "pro" we hired.

Sometimes I wonder if certain folks (maybe not the OP) buy these cameras, shoot the kit lens @ f5.6, and then are concerned why their fancy new "lowlight" kit is not all that great.

I always had a lot of fun with my GM1 and GX7. Shot a ton of video with both. Also took a crazy amount of RAW photos with the GM1. Had tiny Pentax a110 prime lenses on it. Mostly used the 25mm lens. Just a great travel cam. Not saying that sort of thing is for everybody, but I sure enjoyed it.

Used LUMIX

So, video on the G9 comes up a tad short compared to the GH5. The video specs ain't as elaborate. However, as far as I'm concerned, the claimed improvement of G9's IS to 6.5 stops might mitigate those perceived shortcomings. If the G9 could perform closer to what Olympus offers in IS, then that alone makes it slightly superior for actually acquiring footage than a GH5. Of course, that's my perception/preference based on how and what I typically shoot. Personally, I'd take better IS over anything else. Intense pixel peeping is for folks that want to do that. So LOG and high bitrates for them is great. I do think that with dslr shooters there's just way too much over-emphasis on the IQ minutia, and not enough practice of just plain old good shooting/composition. I really doubt that I'll ever have a client in my world that complains about 12 stop vs. 13 stop dynamic range. And, as long as it's the ballpark, they sure don't give a crap about skin tone either. That sort of discrimination among low-budget productions is just unrealistic. They will, however, recognize that a poorly shot video with crappy b-roll is a poorly shot video with crappy b-roll. Bad shooting aesthetics is what it is. If you can't manage to get the footage, and tell a good story with it, then what's the point if it's technically pristine? The G9's auto focus is supposedly improved too, but that doesn't matter to me. I shoot manual glass. I'm more interested in what a camera is going to be able to do for me and my way of shooting while I'm in the field. This is why I've always had a soft spot for my old Olympus EM5II. Not great on specs, but just a good field camera that allowed me to do some insane stuff completely handheld. While I appreciate Panasonic's attempt at IS and OIS, it's not near as good as what Olympus offers. And, to be clear, IS isn't the end-all-be-all for shooting. It's a tool and a preference. Sometimes I like shooting handheld without IS; just depends on the project. These tools are cheap, so it comes down to "what can you offer me right now?" I'm not really projecting using any camera beyond a year. Why would I worry about some HDR tool if that's not even something I need to consider? Now, as a current GH5 owner, I'm only using the GH5 within the same specs range as a G9. No GH5 LOG modes or insanely high bitrates for me. Thus, a G9 looks like a rather decent camera IMHO. I'm not in the market for a camera right now, but if I was I'd give the G9 serious consideration...along with whatever Olympus can put up against it.

I've experienced the opposite with my G85 clips. Weird weird weird.

I've thought about buying. Even a few years ago when 30k used seemed viable. I'm old enough to consider an Alexa a small camera compared to what I used to shoot, so that's not a big worry. But finacially it's silly. My productions don't justify it. Its just that I'm doing docs. And small cinema verite docs don't need a big camera. A big Arri cam would also just get in the way "emotionally" by demanding attention. IQ to make you weep with joy, but I'll take the hit to use a mirror less cam...and shoot breezily all day long. For commercials or up market corporate I'd rent.

I attempted Optimized Media (aka: proxies) last year with Resolve and it bombed spectacularly. Missing clips, failed encoding, crashes, etc. This was with the freebie version on a decently beefy PC system. I was trying to make a 1080p edit from .mp4 4K footage. Anyone got testimony regarding Resolve's "optomized" transcoding reliability these days? Eventually, I'd love to get onto Resolve to edit, but can't do it without practical proxy editing. In the meantime, Premiere is my desk. Which is pretty "meh." Works, but not in love with it.

360. I used to assume it was 0 too. Got "gently" told online that was untrue. ;-) Still, makes chronological sense that it kinda should be 0, doesn't it? Anyway, don't use 360 'less you really like it. The look is very distinct.

Well, that's perfectly fine, but distribution consideration are hardly the best reasons to make a decision about one's story. My critique (granted, very much in-articulated) was that the material felt like it would only need half the time to be productive. The story is redundant in places.