fuzzynormal

On first blush, not great movie, but a really good movie. Kinda what I thought about with the original, but I was a wee bit younger and not as sophisticated with my judgment back then. As I grew with the film it grew with me too. As an old fart, that option doesn't exist with most films anymore, let alone BR2049.

It is, but great stories don't come along every day either. I haven't walked away from 2K, but I have walked away from a 1.5K gig. Weirdly, felt great doing it because of what I did instead.

That's the challenge of the question. Would you pass up the opportunity to tell an awesome story or take the easy cash and play with an awesome camera? Where does one's personal priority as a "filmmaker" lie? --especially the folks that comment here on EOSHD. I'm curious. For myself, up 'til a few years ago, the answer would be #2. Now, my perspective has changed. I've given up gigs to chase random stories. Also, my financial context has changed too. That matters.

Absolutely... This is honestly a serious "what would you really do?" question. It's very much NOT a "what do you think the right answer is?" sorta question. If you need money, then the answer is #2, for sure. Or, if you're a technical guy, and love playing with gear rather above all else, #2 is a perfectly fine answer.

You already own a camera that shoots 12 stops of dynamic range, but you are offered, gratis, to use a premiere industry camera that shoots 16 stops of dynamic range. With the first camera you have the real potential to capture a compelling story that makes your audience laugh, cry, and empathize with a subject they never imagined they would care about. You get paid nothing. With the second camera your job is to shoot a corporate speaker delivering a powerpoint about 3rd quarter margin calls. You would make $2K for the day. Both situations are happening simultaneously. In which scenario would you decide to work?

Yes. I, random stranger on the internet, affirm that you made the correct camera purchase for yourself. Congratulations. You are awesome. Now go make something interesting with it.

If you want shallow DOF and a vintage look on stuff out of a cheap 3ccd, you can always just pick up an old Letus35 lens adapter. Seriously. Man, that'll take the edge off, give you nice motion cadence, and look cool doing it. Goofy way to go, but it works. What you're alluding to is a real and interesting dilemma. With even consumer cameras/lenses looking pristine and wonderful, and everyone has 'em, what does one do to differentiate --but still have something that looks nice? Personally, I absolutely want my IQ to have flaws. It fits the sorts of stories I like to tell. Ramshackle and shabby a little, but still well crafted. Slight chroma aberration on the edges of frame? A smidge of ignetting? Check and check. I want the viewer to sense that what they're watching is not "normal." Thank goodness for the legacy flaws of 24fps! Now, when I do corporate stuff, I slap on my OlyPro lenses @f4 and 60fps. Otherwise, let's keep other stories in visual dream-land.

"I've come to realize the public at large does not have my educational attainment" The internet never fails to entertain me for all the wrong reasons.

Nothing I disagree with in what they're saying or doing. 1) Can't stand the "sports" aspect of ideas. I do wonder if people just want to win some rhetorical game and affirm their belief system more than honestly intellectualize. 2) Making a doc with next to nothing is absolutely viable. My wife and I are doing the same now and have in the past. We're now shooting GH5, but the fact is, IMHO, that a small crew and gear is ideal for documentaries. The reality is that a little bit of skill set with consumer equipment allows anyone to make an awesome looking movie. ML-RAW for a doc is overkill as far as I'm concerned, but if it floats their boat, grab that tiger by the tail. And, FWIW, we plan on making our own half-baked climate change doc in the near future.

In my day, all we had was a balsa wood box that captured the nickleodeons with potato starch spread on the intestines of a dead goat. We'd project our film using the miller's windmill and 10,000 candles. At the end of the night we'd have wax burn scars on our hands and genitals, but the images of old man Johnson waving his pickle jar and holding an onion pitchfork kept us in stitches! That's all we had, by gum, and we liked it! http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/weekend-update-segment---grumpy-old-man/n9908?snl=1

Meh. To much chart peeping, not enough making stuff. It's a good camera, so are a lot of others. Go do something for reals, dangnabit.

IRL, baby. Sounds like fun. If you only knew the crap I used to deal with at my local cinema screen back in the 70's and 80's. I fondly remember certain antics at the screening of "The Cannonball Run." Or may it was "Any Which Way But Loose." (Can't remember, doesn't matter) Of course, the fact that my 2nd run cinema used to be a XXX adult theatre probably didn't help.

Well, I see that Adorama has a receiver I need in the freq range...so maybe I'll just grab that guy and get on with it.

ebay? Or elsewhere?

I'm actually comfortable with being ignorant of information that we'll never understand. Not sure how any being in this universe is going to be able to answer the "why/how are we here?" question. Even if the species learns all else, it stills leads to that point where once there was nothing, then there was something. And how do you answer a question of nothingness? It's like trying to multiply with a zero. Knowing the other nuances is all good though. Discovery is fun. BTW, this discussion seems like something I'd say when I was younger, stoned, and eating a loaf of WonderBread with grape jelly. Therefore, for whatever it's worth, I deem it worthwhile.

Hey All, Bit of a strange overture here, but I'd like to swap out my ew100 ENG G3 516-558 MHz for an ew100 ENG G3 566-608 MHz. This would be for the lav transmitter and receiver. My G3 516-558 MHz is perfectly functional. It's cosmetically scuffed a bit and the LED on the receiver doesn't work. Otherwise, still fine. If you, a reputable tenured member of this forum (sorry, Egyptian dentists need not apply), have a similarly used ew100G3 that's 566-608 MHz, but don't really care which freq. range you use, think a fair trade would be possible? I'd pay for all shipping and even throw in a $25 amazon gift card as a personal thanks. Basically, getting my hands on a 566-608 MHz would really help me out a ton at the moment! I don't know if this is a ridiculous request (probably) but it couldn't hurt to ask. I suppose I'd also be happy to anyone letting me rent a 566-608 MHz for 2 months? I'm open to any options that don't involve me spending $800 for a completely new kit. What do you think? Oh, BTW, I'm in the USA at the moment.

It's a good camera, as are others. "The best" IQ margin between flagship devices is narrow. I can't see how that parameter would affect my decision to use one or the other much, tbh. But, yeah, I'm wholly skeptical, if not dismissive, of websites like DXOmarks these days for a number of reasons.

Hey, I have time on my hands, and I do like to spend it here.

Ummm...wtf? This to promote their brand? Man, that's just... *sigh*

I often watch YouTube videos @360 rez. I swear it looks better sometimes. Isn't that the way these days? Creators craft something pristine and guys like me at the end of the line blow it all up. OTOH, I'd feel relieved to yell at certain manufacturing engineers. You know the ones. The dudes that enable frame interpolation as the default setting on their TV's. Oh, the irony. As for the EVA, it's great.

I recently bought a pair of Voigtlander for a doc film. I got 'em specifically because they're a pair. One GH5 shoots with the 42.5mm and the other with the 25mm. Easier and pretty much the same price to do this than buying/using old glass with high-quality speedboosters. You can always find inexpensive old lenses, but I couldn't really effectively pair-match them up as I wanted to, so I found good value with the V-glass in that regard. They're nice lenses. And I WANT manual focus for my doc work (auto focus, yuck) so the Voigtlanders were a good fit for me. If anyone else is considering this, I'd recommend it. Fast glass that allows you to shoot in some really low-light if necessary. They're decently sharp @f1.4...but if you need that .95, it's there for ya. ISO 6400 @.95 is useable (depending) if the situation demands it, and that's pretty much filming in the dark.

Looks like a stress test to see how different cameras handle light and color. Maybe they're trying to figure out how far they'd feel comfortable safely pushing and pulling the image in post production. Or perhaps they're making an attempt to match color between different cams. Most likely it's a test for their own practical reasons, not an attempt to discover the "best" cameras. (I just skimmed the vid, did they state at all what the intent was?)

I like life. I like it's sorrows and it's magic. For some reason I'll never fathom I was allowed to experience it for a little while. Thanks universe! You're the best.

Yup, but then again, is that what one wants for whatever production they're doing? Speaking for myself, I'm not a big fan of huge dynamic range in fictional narrative. I'm a product of gritty 70's American cinema and I'm not afraid to admit that I think there's maybe TOO much "unthoughtful" resolution and dynamic range in modern productions. Hollywood comedies are the worst with this. Boring lighting and cinematography with such a high resolution sheen one starts analyzing the uncanny valley flaws of the sound stage. The visual info is just distracting. There's something to be said for deliberately obscuring what the audience sees in an image. That opinion maybe puts me at odds with the majority of people out there, but so be it. However, I do think good dynamic range is perfectly fine for corporate video stuff, nature docs, --or even certain narrative fiction, I guess. Depends. It's a tool, you know? I mean, I can Ooo and Ahh with the best of them when watching pretty 60p 8K time lapse footage on huge monitors, but just visual stimulation ain't enough for me and pretty pictures gets old real fast without an appropriate story. Eh, it's all subjective. All of this is OT anyway, so I best shut-up. Balance your decision on what matters to you, and you'll be fine.

Depends on what you want from an image. My thought is that people should consider that brands/sensors are sort of akin to the ancient art of choosing a film stock. It's all pretty good these days, you just gotta decide what works for you in the context of your needs. Artistic and financial. I must admit, I'm surprised that folks are still going in circles regarding this consideration of film production. I guess for me, since it's all quite advanced in 2017, I just can't get excited enough about the sensor tech side to put those considerations as a top priority. So much more important things to fret about. I mean, like casting...holy shit....casting... Anyway, those things that jonpais is talking about with the GH5 are a more pragmatic consideration, but you probably know what you're wanting to accomplish. If it were me I'd just keep going with the NX1 (nice camera) unless you're doing run and gun that you really want or need IBIS'ed.