fuzzynormal

To be clear, no pun intended, the title if the thread is: "The GH5's audio sucks balls both with and without a mic" --and this clip is with a mic. The Sennheiser ew100 lav, actually. Its running directly into the mini plug mic input on the GH5.

Here's an example I shot today. Judge for yerself if you think it's decent enough: TEST_.mp4

It's certainly not crazy to be meticulous and try your best with what ya got. But on a website for aspiring filmmakers, but mostly hobbyist, it makes sense that attention is applied a little too much to a single thing, the camera. Many here are locked into what cameras do or don't do because, perhaps, they don't need to have a well-rounded approach to a production. Also, it's just fun to talk about technical crap. For me, the more important things are not camera specific. As you know, I love playing with cameras, but to funnel the majority of my attention through what apiece of gear can or can't do can be distracting. (unless that was my specific job) Sometimes, for instance, a good prop and production design is more integral to success than whatever sensor you happen to be using. Blocking, lighting, cinematography...um, the actual acting...one's ability to be a decent director...so much more important on a narrative. If you got yourself or a crew that excels in that, you'll be fine regardless of what you're shooting with. Interestingly, I think camera/sensor/lens decisions might be MORE important these days on documentary, where controlled situations are not part of things and the crew is very minimal.

Hey, I saw this at the cinema...so what are we really worried about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCdRFMp8Xwo

Man, I love how hobbyist and non-pros are equipped way better than me! --a guy making a living at this stuff. I don't know. I find that sort of cool in a way.

What's about "Occam's Razor"? Why or why not for some of this stuff? Thoughts?

Don't misunderestimate the power of Asia KFC.

I think this is a very viable model and good info. The thing to realize here too, is that the movie is okay, nothing special at all; meandering and narratively frustrating, but it's about a thing people are curious about, so they're willing to drop a few bucks on it. These sorts of niche markets are everywhere. Also, FWIW, I talked with the producer of this film earlier this year, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/first_girl_i_loved/ and he was very encouraging about the self-distribution/marketing paths that currently exist for smaller films. The cliff note gist of that chat was essentially: "DIY niche online marketing with a budget" -- and, if you have a decent product, that'll generate enough sales to get things into the black. His essential sales avenue for that flick is iTunes.

I used the EM5II for walking around street style shooting. Loved it. Learned to work well enough with the IBIS to mimic dolly shots. It's truly great for grabbing b-roll on the move that looks like it's not handheld footage.

Not particularly interested for myself. However, I think it may have a market. For instance, as a kid growing up near Detroit, I've always felt that car companies that are willing to create premium models of their product were ahead of the game. You'd lust after a GT40 and admire it, knowing you'd never own it, but respecting the Ford brand because it could make something so bad-ass. Besides, if cameras can have a enthusiast's marketplace, why not stuff like this?

Bastards.

"Two Shits and a Popsicle" is my next t-shirt.

Truer words were never spoken.

I love the feel and use of EM5II, so I'd willingly endorse Olympus cameras for doc filmmaking. And if IBIS matters to you, you can't do better. I currently own a GH5 and would switch back to Oly if I wasn't in the middle of a client gig that requires 4k 60p.

Not me. I'm brutal and discriminating to all footage. Don't care where it comes from or who shot it, me included. If I'm not willing to cut, then I'm not editing.

Yes, I have a Haida x64 (nd1.8) for this lens. Not great, not bad. It's not completely color-neutral, but it's also not obnoxious either. Better than the greenish tints from Tiffen and not warm-ish like a B&W. (which I actually like) FWIW, you're not going to get a budget ND that's color-neutral. I've often debated about buying a serious pro-level set of 4x4 filters and a universal matte-box thingy so I can use the same set across my entire range of lenses, but that sort of rig just doesn't fit my shooting style. The other option is to buy a set of 77mm filters and then just use a bunch of step-up rings for your various glass sizes. Of course, doing this would then require a french flag for blocking sun glare...so trade-offs all around. At one point I even though about buying a cool chinese mount adapter that loads small 52mm filters between the camera and behind the glass. Maybe an option if you're invested in a specific set of lenses like eos/nikon/pentax/olympus/etc.. Not a terrible idea. Variable ND's are convenient, but I'm just not a fan with the color shifts. Regarding a 1.8 ND, I will say that on a sunny day x64 is not enough to allow wide open f.0.95 shooting @100 shutter speed. You'd need something stronger by about 3 stops.

If you want to access your American Netflix account overseas, use a VPN originating from the States. At the moment all these services use ip addresses to determine customer "location." So, tell them you're in NewYork when you're actually in New Deli.

Consider that the OP is right on target when he states that the AF100 is pretty much a glorified GH1. You can probably get a GH1 on Craigslist by battering a used pair of shoes. Seems to me camera geeks will ALWAYS debate specs. (nothing wrong with that) Creatives will go do interesting stuff. (nothing wrong with that) The wonderful thing about 2017 is that anyone that really wants to do something, well, the door is wide open. There's absolutely no technology barrier anymore.

This discussion thread is still going for a few good reasons. It touches on an important consideration in film-making. For instance, I made a short impressionistic travelogue film on the 5DMII 8 years ago. Shot it with one old 50mm prime lens. I think it looks great and I'm proud of it. The fact that it's Canon's ho-hum 1080p is not the reason that film is received well from my targeted audience. It's the material -- and the fact that what is there appeals to the viewer regardless of resolution. Also in my library is a simple corporate film from 2009 that used a XH-A1, shot on VideoTape, for goodness sake. The location was an Audi design studio. The place was illuminated like a giant soft box; looked great, featured a bunch of cool cars, and I made a bunch of weird creative choices in the shooting/editing. That little vid still generates work for me. Simply because of the brand name, content, and the overall look of the work. If we talk about what is really necessary, let's be sensible. It helps to consider that craft still carries the day. Always has and will. As it should. That said, I shoot 4k when appropriate. It's there to assist in the craft not define it. Seeing as this thread is over a year old, I can probably imagine I've posted the same thing on here months earlier!

Well, this ain't my experience. Granted, editing 4K h.264 natively isn't fun, so I avoided that, but.... My wife and I completed a six part documentary series this year for regional PBS. 6 30 minute docs shot on 4k with 2 GX85's. Edited in Premiere with proxies. I disagree that it's a troublesome post process. The tech side of things all worked easily for me (creative was a whole 'other thing) and would recommend to anyone dealing with large amounts of footage and wanting a simple workflow. Storage is cheap and the proxy file sizes are quite modest to create, store, and edit with. win-win-win. Slow and cheap hard drives work fine, so you can buy the inexpensive drives and build virtual RAIDS with 'em, no problem. 4TB hard drives are barely $100. That's $600 for 24TB. So, 12TB for working and 12TB for simultaneous RAID backup. 12TB will hold a lot of footage and proxies. I had 6 months of shoots on those drives. And my PC is pretty strong pushing numbers so the proxy transcoding was no big deal. Happens rather fast, actually. We even were able to edit with the proxies over LAN, so we had two edit seats working in tandem. One was the PC, the other was a 9 year old iMac. If anyone is interested in the geekier side of this cheap-o set-up, PM me. For me it was do-able and VERY practical. Keep in mind this was not a system for a fast-turnaround-daily-grind. Our doc series had the luxury of a long deadline. If you're trying to do something instantaneous you'd require something more robust. TV "broadcasting" stuff has more intense schedule requirements, so you'd need to pay for gear that can keep pace.

Ha. Think you might know more about American politics than the voters that live here.

I think the reason this is a popular thread on EOShd is simply because this is a nerd site for cheap cameras. We know, or want to know, the intricacies of techniques and equipment. What we do with these bits of info, if anything, is another matter altogether. I will say that, personally, the people I know and admire creatively aren't obsessively concerned with the nerdy tech stuff. They know enough to work and the rest ain't a big deal ---or trust others to carry that water. That's my world though. Yours might be different.

Not sure. I need implants though. Think he could get me a deal?

I wouldn't agree with that considering some of the RED footage I've had to deal with in my life! Anyway, it's all so subjective. I have a preference for trashy looking motion pictures because those are the kinds of film projections I grew up on. Others will have different ideas about stuff. I'm not an IQ snob, but it's okay of you are. Oh, and regarding the authorship vs. grammar metaphor from earlier in the thread: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycpahrdn

Since this work looks great already what would be improved exactly by using a different camera? Maybe extra stops of DR or better color in some respects, but what would that really accomplish? Lensing, composition, cinematic craft are strong already in this example. Not being snarky here, truly interested at how images these days could be "3 times" better? Certainly cameras can have more IQ over others, but to what end? Would images in this sort of narrative be all that much discernible? (Unless you're doing some wild grade with RAW for more extreme effects) Aren't we to the point where it all looks good if you know what you're doing?