fuzzynormal

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.

And here I thought this blog was for arguing about skin tone dynamic range crop factor depth of field. Dense writing there, but fun. I'ma sucker for Sci-Fi anyway. That story would be a hugely demanding directoral task. Intimidating! But with the right cast, all is possible. San Junipero was ultimately a very sweet story and the humanity and performances of the story really sold it. Plot is overrated, IMHO. But that's neither here nor there. Of course, the main thing is just to write and find a groove. Good advice. It's been over a year since my last script; should definitely shake things out again.

The Zoom H1 Input Impedance‎: ‎2 kOhms (0 to -39 dBm) The input level of the H1 pre likes to be on the low side or extraneous noise can be noticeable. Use an input level of 33 rather than 99, for example. This was my experience when using the sennheiser ew100 g3 with the H1. Knowing one's mic systems output impedance is good when using this cheaper Zoom recorder. I also experienced RF noise with a particular shotgun mic, an unshielded cable, and my wireless transmitter. However, that was my fault, not necessarily the H1. It illustrates how cheap gear is susceptible to limitations, so you need to be careful.

Izotope Rx. That'll fix it. Good tool to have on hand overall. Worth buying, imho.

I shot my last doc with that Oly 45mm lens. (mostly) Looks great @f2. Recommended.

It's a fun book to read. His process ain't mine, but it was still inspiring; especially in the era he did it. Be that as it may, he was a guy set in his ways and knew what he wanted to do... which leads to another wrinkle in regards to creativity and motion pictures: Some of us are tuned into the process in a way that our endeavors quickly resonate with the recipients that view them. These creatives know the "vocabulary" of the craft rather easily and fluently. Those folks are the blessed, as they have a storytelling advantage. Others strive away at things more esoteric and never find an audience, nor may never desire one. Seems like I heard a term for this phenomenon in the past, but I can't recall the phrase at the moment.

That's how it's been for me as well. Wisdom is earned.

I offered that advice recently on a forum thread and the OP rejected it. No problem. However, that does show that each of us has our own way of doing things, especially with creative stuff.

Doesn't matter for most wedding clients. The stuff is manufactured and augmented fantasy...people want to look idealized. If you get a director that can tap into the other stuff too, you've hired a winner. But that's such a savvy skill to have. Anyone THAT good is most likely doing real work. --probably ain't spending weekends making brides look glam.

I think the main idea when discussion like this come up is that many shooters want to emulate cinema style production "on the fly," or documentary run-n-gun style. It's tricky but doable. This look is accomplished with shooting skill first and foremost. You know, things like understanding how to use natural light, framing, sequence shooting, dolly emulation, etc. As mentioned, any recent camera will do. Some tools give one a bit more post production flexibility, but it really just comes down to the shooter's decisions on location. And, yeah, an easy initial trick is to do slow-mo with a long lens and shallow DOF... but that's only a starting point...

FWIW, I'm shooting a gig right now where I make the GH5 look as non-cinematic as possible. VIVID color profile 8-bit @60p. Looks great! ;-)

My 2 cents is that the notion that conservatives are somehow being silenced is a bit silly. Their voices are often the loudest and most boisterous in the USA. They have ample representation in the media as well. The USA had a strong moderate attitude after WWII because it was tempered by the conflict and post war economic boom. I believe modern citizens actually have it better these days, but perceived slights are embraced and railed upon simply because of a weird human desire to justify ourselves. ...not unlike a newbie camera owner rationalizing their purchase by bad mouthing a different piece of gear. And, look, the Internet is a shell game. It's evolved into a manipulative and exploitive tool because it can be. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/fake-polls-are-a-real-problem/ Some citizens have the ability to be aware of this, others never will be. The 'others' will never ever ever be in short supply. Some people are skeptics. Some people are willfully gullible. So it is, so it has ever been. --don't see that changing as long as humanity exists.

I don't know what it is, but I give the edge to Fuji. Not that I dislike my 5D, just kinda dig what I get out of this XPro2.

A lot of people poop their pants for Canon color, but imho the Fuji looks better. And while I think the pany colors are decent, but Fuji just looks awesome most of the time.

Understanding lighting and the shape/texture of light is an acquired skill. That's pretty much the simple answer, but a comprehension of what that particularly means takes study. I had a few semesters of art school that got me going years ago. I was a terrible artist, but it set me thinking about light. Getting a handle on what light is, how we perceive it, and what it does for your motion picture image is one of the things that separates legitimate filmmakers from others. I wish I could summarize what "good lighting" means, but it's so contextual and subjective...you just got to learn it on your own. FWIW, I'd do the light on set with direct consideration of what your background plate(s) looks like. Adding effective shadow and highlights on a moving subject is a PITA.

Since you're doing 2D type animation stuff, I'd recommend shooting long focal lengths. This will "sit" better in the eventual composition. I made a green screen project a few years back wherein we tried the short lens look. Didn't like it at all and threw out all those shots. Edge distortion was awkward. And, FWIW, we shot vertical too. Also, an art direction thing to consider: Your subject is darker than the background. As a rule of thumb, to make the image easier to look at, reverse that. Not that you need to always do this, just a consideration. Working in the virtual realm like you're doing gives you complete control over your "lighting." Make sure you exploit it.

We'll see how that goes. I don't dislike Panny's IBIS, but I don't love it either. It drifts a bit. Not bad for some things, frustrating for others. You need to engage digital stabilization to settle any sort of handheld jitters above a focal length of 25mm. BTW, I often use a OIS 14-140 Panny lens which activates the tandem "dual" OS-IS stabilization when turned on...not that impressive, tbh.

I'm curious...

My wife is shooting xpro2 right now for a gig. She's b-cam. If I have time I'll upload some footage. We're on the Isles of Scilly, so some nice beachy images...

Because it looks better.

I've used Fuji for paid gigs. X-pro2. Works okay. Not reliable image. Odd distortion with edges of frames and the Fuji wide angle lens. Anything with auto exposure will result in "step" adjustments. Not smooth changes. Its useable, but doesn't exactly inspire confidence or allow flexibility. Needs exposure compensation in post, and you have to adjust the native files. If your workflow happens to involve a transcode before editing, you're gonna have an issue to deal with insofar as you'll have to adjust levels while transcoding or you're gonna have a lot of detail lost in the blacks and highlights. Most folks don't work this way these days, so most likely that's a moot point, but still mentioning it just in case...using FCP7 ain't a viable option, for instance. Color sure is purty tho'