fuzzynormal

Is that right? I've not noticed a more discernible shallow DOF simply because I'm using a speedbooster. COC looks the same to me with or without a speedbooster...just adds more exposure and FOV. Which is certainly great... wait, are we agreeing on the same thing? Ah, who cares. I just want a FF cam with an 50 or 55mm fast lens for interviews.

All true, and I've done it all... but with the way I'll have to do things on my upcoming project and in the places that I'll be forced to do 'em, wide open(ish) lenses on full frame is the extreme shallow DOF solution I'm aiming for. Speed boosters are good for bumping exposure, but don't do much for the "circle of confusion," which is an important aesthetic consideration a lot of folks using SB's tend to ignore --which is fine to ignore until you don't want to ignore it. I'd like 4k for the added benefit of cropping for a tighter frame as an alternate shot. And, FWIW, following focus manually on someone shifting around is not impossible. I'd suggest that if one has even a little bit of skill it's pretty simple to do. Mark the focus ring based on an interviewees lean tendencies, and manually float back and forth between those limits as the person moves. A cheap grease pencil can be your bestest buddy. Hard stop the limits if you have to. Besides, as far as I'm concerned, any analog organic motion (even when focusing) looks better than a robot algorithm doing it.

Alright. What's the best value/option for a 4K camera that shoots full frame. Would use it for interview set-ups...and that's about it.

I got one. Indy film festivals are a dime a dozen. There's thousands of 'em. There's not all that many that are hardwired directly to Hollywoo. You know how it is, big name festivals earn the luxury of advanced screening of studio films. It happens when the brand and event goes corporate. SXSW is now an industry event. You ever been? I was there once 10 years ago and it was already pretty much big biz'ness. Actually, I should give all y'all here a submission code discount for the festival I'm a part of. What do you think? You want an indy fest, let me tell you, we're definitely an indy fest.

I too get excellent results from using a bulky Glidecam. (a poor man's steadycam knockoff) So much so I've never seriously considered getting a gimbal. I like gimbals and have used them, just never utilize those sorts of shots enough to justify a purchase. Old Glidecam rigs are cheap and big. Both of those facts actually make it a great high-value tool. More mass=smoother shots. What shooter in their right mind dislikes long lens shots?

If you're unsure of the exact source of your buddy's income working with his camera, I'm going to assume it was almost exclusively work-for-hire. Unless your colleague is a stock footage content creator wunderkind. For most, however, as IronFilm said, in the stock footage game "many opportunities await to make dozens of ¢!" My point is that a subset of people doing creative jobs have the luxury of underwriting their own adventures. What they can or cannot get paid doesn't matter so much because they're already loaded. Nice "work" if you can get it. --And if you can get it, won't you tell me how? ;-)

And how? Through stock or as a for-hire shooter?

Can't really afford to jump on a plane unless I'm getting paid, so it's actually a silly biz model for me. Of course, for more affluent people that want an excuse to go somewhere on their own dime and "work," it's a decent rationalization. That's not snark. It's part of the reality of creative crafts. One sees it in many creative fields.

https://youtu.be/SuPNjVvTmCw?t=1m38s

It's real estate. As they say: "Location, location, location." Basically, it's even naturally lit rooms with lots of ambient light so you don't need 13 stops of DR. I've shot similar with a lowly 5DII. High end properties are designed by high end architects that know what they're doing. Light is a very high priority consideration. Thus, these properties just look awesome all around. You're shooting in space that has already considered the stuff that makes for impressive visuals. This is high-end marketing so they're probably on a really good camera, but I'm not seeing anything too surprising regarding some impressively extended DR. In fact, looks like they're over exposing a bit to grab shadow details.

Agreed, but those certain conditions don't happen a lot on the stuff I shoot, so 8-bit 4k for me! After effects + masking w/blur, NR, layer blending, and adding grain. The usual. No secret.

Season One. When McNulty, Bubbles, and Det. Kima go over their work and Bubbles has a little soliloquy --looked like a high school stage play he was so overlit!

Practically, I don't need it. IF a shot has a gradient that creates banding I can fudge over it with some post voodoo. Or, more likely, just live with it. *gasp!* Okay, I'll pardon you to retreat to the chaise and allow recovery of your delicate constitution... Hey, I'm a low-fi filmmaker, got better stuff to worry about. Now, if I was in a more up-market situation, it matters. But I ain't, so it's doesn't. And, on a side note, the IQ tech will be so democratized in 5 years it REALLY won't matter. ---------- Funny story: running a filmfest and one filmmaker had the most engaging narrative feature length film about love/family/redemption. Beautiful characters, etc, etc. Looked like garbage though. Shot on a Sony HDR-SR1. Bad lighting, exposure, color grading, composition, cinematography, highlight roll off was disgusting! ... Still somehow an engaging film! Writing and acting were so good. However, the director came up to me an hour before screening, distraught that he didn't give us the ProRes4:4:4 file (we were going to screen the .mp4) "Oh, please fix this problem! Please!" Dude, what problem, I thought. Your film looks like shit and we still like it. 4:4:4 ain't an issue. Anyway, screened the ProRes4:4:4 and he felt better. People is crazy, y'all. On a side note, I'm watching "The Wire" for the first time. Looks like crap too. (yes, even shot on film) Sets are so poorly lit or overlit -- and there's nothing really interesting going on with the cinematography. Oh well. Still good stuff to watch.

Well, I'm a wanna-be-something that's curious as to why AF is important to vloggers is all. Seems like many more staid vloggers could just avoid the camera messing up focus by simply not using AF.

Regarding auto-focus, maybe I'm watching the wrong vlog stuff on YouTube...but...do people really move around all that much? Most "Hey Guys, sorry I'm in my parent's basement today, but I want to show you..." video I've watched is a simple talking head w/jump cuts and the person is the same distance from the lens ALL. THE. TIME. So, ummm, why is AF the hot spec right now for cameras that these people want? Where exactly is the need for awesome AF? Or is it us, the enthusiast market that has more practical uses for it, that's clamoring for it?

For what I do, I'm finding ergos and IBIS extremely important, which is why I'm still missing owning a EM5II. [sad face] Well, I tend to not use the 180 shutter on my GH5. When shooting 24fps, I'll shoot a SS of 40 or 30, for instance. I'll even go to 25 depending. I like the increased blur a little better with LUMIX --but it's really a matter of taste... BTW, I do think shooting 50fps SS is perfectly fine and looks decent; just like to take the edge off my images a little bit. So so so little. IQ is certainly great, but it doesn't do the writing or acting.

Best of luck to you. Don't get sucked too far into corporate. It will crush your soul. You can't keep a good creative person down, so go for it.

Not bad, but the skin tones are a little off in a lot of those shots. Also, the main protagonist seems to have something wrong with his mic.

Point granted to team Canon on that one. I like playing with our X-Pro2 we have in house, (takes lovely stills) but it can't really do the heavy lifting of a demanding video gig. I'd actually rather shoot video for a job with a 5DII than the X-Pro2. It's not the the Xpro2 wouldn't make a better image, because it does, but getting there is not reassuring. In my experience, Olympus (only recently) and Panasonic are also solid video shooter hybrids too. It's not really about squeaking out a little bit of extra IQ on many jobs/tasks I have, so I tend to fret about other stuff.

Olympus EM5II too. People will whine that Oly's 1080 has too much moire, but whatevs. It does all the other stuff just fine. And, really, the IBIS is really, really, really good. Really. FWIW, I also shot 6 docs on the GX85. That camera is a great value. Sorry. I forgot sarcasm doesn't flush through the intertubes...

Yes.

But the colors! My god everyone! THE COLORS! THE COLORS!

There's detail in the highlights too. Yeah, Andrew explained it way back when. Basically using "Fast Color Corrector" you quickly even out the exposure. Here's another example from an poor-over-exposed shot from some raw b-roll. It's actually what's loaded in my Premiere at the moment: 1st image is what you see when you bring the clip into the editor. 2nd shot is with "Fast Color Corrector" applied for exposure adjustment. I'm not saying the Fuji is some sort of wonder-camera; better than the bee's knees, and YOUR NEXT PURCHASE! ....but it's certainly a decent and fun cam. It's hard not to love it for stills, that's for sure.

X-Pro2 4k is decent. It's a nice bonus for a cam released without it. Quirky, but useful if you're not too demanding. Fuji cams are fun, but I don't trust 'em for serious gigs like I would my GH5 or Olympus cameras. I do use the X-Pro2. (shot with it tonight, actually) Fuji colors look good out of the box...but you really need to tweak exposure in post. Pushing and pulling the color a tad helps too. That nature video above is underwhelming because of, I think, user error. The exposure is off --there's a lot of detail in the shadows being ignored there. Perhaps some of the earnest praise for those images is a good example of folks talking themselves into liking IQ because they're emotionally invested in their own personal Fuji purchase? I dunno, but I wouldn't hang my opinion on Fuji IQ from that clip.

I like SECAM.