fuzzynormal

Yeah, that's exactly it. Correct. All I got to say is that you should have your opinion taken away. I'm all about removing rights from strangers on the internet and destroying their freedoms. It's just a thing I like to do. Doing that...and hijacking threads from OP's. Life's mission: accomplished. I can die fulfilled. You sure you're not phasing into an alternate dimension? That could be scary.

As examples to show that pristine IQ isn't as important as some people think. The implication that a film looking "like shit" means that the movie is mediocre is a sad notion. Some of my favorite movies have image quality worse than a 1970's video camera. Well, I guess I'm glad someone here can talk with authority to the creative motivations of filmmakers like Steven Soderbergh and David Lynch. Lord knows they've had a hard time articulating themselves in the movie business. I suggest you reach out to them and help produce some of their future work --as apparently they're just doing stuff for no particular reason at all. [eyeroll] Unsure about revolutionary, but I do trust Soderbergh, as a prolific guy from an indy background, to be inventive, embrace the aesthetic, and use style for his storytelling. How well he hits that balance between style and substance, well, we'll see.

Seen "Inland Empire"? "28 Days Later"? "Pi"? The thing with ambitious film directors is that they go places for their stories without strictures. Automatically assuming that a film is "less" based on IQ is unfortunate understanding of the craft, imho. I'm going to go out in a limb and guess that the storytelling in Soderbergh's film might have a little more emotional heft than whatever y'all did back in the day.

Perhaps new sensor tech will go a long way to solve the limited ISO issue. I've also wondered why radically low ISO's have not been unavailable on cameras. Too lazy to look up why. Figure it must be some sort of limitation in the tech that probably could be solved, but not worth the effort.

Those expectations are getting less demanding all the time it seems. I dunno. I think I'm swimming in the shallow end of the pool.

Tech moves fast. Basically I kinda think we'll have Alexa level IQ in consumer grade stuff in -give or take- 5 years. Can old dudes like me make worthwhile videos at career rate$ when EVERYBODY is making worthwhile videos for free? Wondering if and how I can differentiate myself enough from the horde to expect someone to pay me for stuff. Do I have the creative mojo for success -- since having tech-mojo is going to be (is) a mundane commodity. ...Wondering if legitimate work-for-hire might be a dead-end within the decade.

Yeah, that's pretty much it. Those guys used to offer really interesting and cool day shoot/edits. Some of the stuff I did for them was legit and wherein you could make $1.5K+ on fun little gigs, but that was a long time ago. That's the democratization of low-end production --and supply and demand in action. They went where the market lead them. Happened in music and it happened in video.

FWIW, I'm aware of the company you're doing this for. Although I'm sure they appreciate the shooters they "hire" going the extra mile to do the best they can, you're over thinking it. However, if your using their platform to cut your teeth and develop a skill set for future career work, then by all means, go at it with that ulterior motive. ...but don't think that they're all that concerned about quality at their price point...and they'd admit as much. And, even though it's tempting because you're doing something to get paid, never consider that level of pay "professional."

No. If it seems like a good deal to you to you, then have at it. As you say, when you know what to do with a camera, then the one you have is the "best"

I have a 48" TV 12' from the couch. As such, I watch/rent SD movies. It's $1 cheaper and you can't really discern a huge difference between 480 SD and 8k with that sort of dimension/scale. My setup is roughly typical of a lot of homes. I'm all for high-res in acquisition, but it's just not something that regular people are going to clamor for in their displays; enthusiast, yes, but most people aren't terribly interested in the size-scale required to benefit from super-ultra-high-def.

c200 IQ recognition, to me, reveals a causation vs. correlation issue. Are the c200 videos better because they use a c200, or are the people and organizations that use (and can afford to buy) the c200 simply more accomplished?

Are you implying some people sell their "opinions"? Have I been lied to my whole life? Endorsements are a BS marketing ploy? Dang. And, yeah, Canon rolls out a bunch of gear. A lot of it is hamstrung in video specs. That's how they roll. I hope you're not legitimately worried or concerned about any of this. It's the same story, different day.

Bidding my time for an EM5III. Loved the EM5II, but 'til they offer it w/4K, I'll keep shooting LUMIX. My only worry is that Oly won't get to 60p 4K. Anyway, the EM5's are still the best cameras I've ever used that really fits my ergo preferences. Shooting with them was always fun.

Yes. So can any camera released in the last 8 years. If you don't know why, then I kind of think worrying about what camera you're buying is just a little misguided. 2cents and all that...

I'm not a fan of Windows at all. I too "feel cheap inside" using it, definitely prefer to work in the OSX environment. Then again, to be fair, I've not had many crashes of Premiere on my PC. FWIW, I keep my PC super clean software-wise. Hardly anything else installed on it: pretty much the most minimal OS install I could manage, + hardware drivers, and then my Adobe apps. Would certainly love to get back to Mac someday soon, but PC's are cheap and fast --and the modularity of that environment is nice. OTOH, I'm fascinated by running Resolve on Linux. Probably a stupid rabbit hole to crawl into, but still interesting.

Is that a problem? Color is always manipulated.

Subtle, but effective!

I will eventually, but they just got the cams a few days before this particular volunteer project --and for talking head stuff it was fine as is. I mean, that's a $90 camera getting that shot. Not bad.

That's a bunch of bounce from nearby orange furniture, actually...but yeah, I could even it out in post; not gonna get too crazy though, just looking to get it in the ballpark.

It's an unhacked GH1. I'm currently in an edit seat not my own. It's a donated crap monitor/PC-setup, so I'm not really sure what's what... FWIW, I'm thinking the mids need to be warmer, but if it's decent, I'll roll with it.

Looking for color feedback based on what I'm doing during a volunteer gig. (shot using daylight)

Is this thread ironic? I don't know. Old guys aren't supposed to employ irony. It's against the rules once you're over 50.

Fine. Simple and useful. Any decent/old 2.8 on an M43 camera are perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned. Really, for less than $200 you're shooing with capabilities that any filmmaker from a generational ago would have killed for.

Well, in that particular example, absolutely no question about it! ;-) Everyone buy a Gh5 instead of renting an Arri. Random guy in the internet said so.

Back in the day lots of filmmakers would shoot on older-tech film stocks 'kuz they were cheaper than the less grainy stuff. Or, they used older film stocks because it gave them a look they were going for. Not much different from deciding what sensor to use now-a-days. The thing is, technology advancement blew through the financial barrier about a decade ago. At this point anyone that's deep into wrangling the best IQ out of something...is probably just doing it to wrangle the best IQ out of something. There's literally about a hundred consumer cameras for under 1K that will allow a "Filmmaker" to go out and capture awesome footage. Hell, to support a school's volunteer filmmaking club, I just bought a GH1's for $95 and a Pentax f2.8 prime lens set 18mm, 24mm, and 50mm for $50. A laptop to edit 1080 footage can be had for, what, $250? If that's not the doors wide open, what is? Someone with skill in the craft could make that look not only fine, but exceptional. It will never look AS GOOD as a better camera in a good craftsman's hands, but people don't watch narratives to pick at the technical details. Accomplish the goals of good storytelling with decent cinematography and you're on your way. Love new gear stuff, but there's so much else to concentrate on, just can't get excited about it anymore. One more anecdote: I'm on a film festival committee, one of our selected films was shot on the GH5, another on the Arri. Hand to god, while I can certainly tell the difference, the IQ is such a non-factor it's ridiculous. The lighting in the GH5 film was creative, the Arri film lighting was boring...