fuzzynormal

On the other hand, films like Kendy's get made and have the style they do and the energy they do in part because of the flexibility a small camera/minimal crew. IQ isn't a big deal to most lay viewers. As long as the sound is decent, the image doesn't have to be pristine. Anyway, it's all just tools. Pick the ones that gets you where you want to go. Some people WANT to move to "Video Village" and build a career there, others would rather run free with a GH1 and a single prime lens. There's no right or wrong answer.

FWIW, I have "misfire". It sort of works, but the results arent authentic to my tastes. Tweaking the parameters can get you sort of there, but I just never "felt-it" with that plugin. Yes. This is my experience as well. Since I was but a poor lad in my childhood, going to the 1dollar matinees at the second run movie house was my movie-world. Bad projection is "film" to me.

I believe you can find some static stock footages of old 8mm film online. Using that, it's not too much trouble to motion track the image and apply it to your own shots. This'll give you that old looking analog/mechanical image shift and jumping.

The skill set required to make things like this amaze me! I wish I had the capacity to be creative in this way. Y'all should be commended and rewarded for your efforts. Still, even though I love me some electronics, being a bit Luddite-ish when it comes to lenses and cameras is just in my nature. I'll take "simple-and-manual" over "code" for doing traditional photography things, like focusing. Fly-by-wire? No thanks. It reminds me of the apocryphal story of the NASA-difficult-to-develop-weightless-ink-pen vs. Soviet Space Program's lead pencil. Keep up the good work though! You're not making this stuff for old farts like me! https://youtu.be/-kHa3WNerjU

You need good audio and maybe some decent ND filters. Other than that, you'd be fine. Not sure why you think you need a slider, video head, stabilizer, or follow focus. I don't have any of those things and my productions work out okay for me. I've been "started" for 30 years now.

To each his or her own, but I feel I can do more with less. If I had a lucrative gig, no problem I'd certainly rent if that's what the client wanted. But for my own projects I'll keep the expenses tighter...I feel like I can get (realatively) comparable IQ from cheaper gear.

Matching is absolutely do-able, but I found it somewhat laborious in post when working with hundreds of hours of various footage. When the production is smaller, those considerations are not so important. I finished a big gig last year wherein I had to match from numerous cams/lenses and doing so under a time crunch...well, the results ain't pretty. If I'm working on my own projects and I'm going to can tons of footage, then my attitude is: "let's make it consistent from the get go and save the hassle in post." For me, that's a worthwhile investment and getting cam-pair/lens-pair is part of that decision..

It is an issue for me. Im part of a documentarian team that shoots, with my wife, an A and a B. As such, I'm frequently looking to rent or buy camera pairs and lenses. Typically, for our own self-financed films, I'll purchase the gear on deferred credit --and then re-sell the stuff 4 or 5 months down the road when everything is shot and in the can. The depreciation between the purchase and resell is what I consider my "rent" fees. Gear comes and goes this way and the cost of having the stuff while the work is happening is very reasonable. Cheaper and more flexible than actually renting. For instance, we bought another GH5 recently simply to pair with the initial one (purchased for another gig) and now we'll be using those GH5 cameras for the summer. Id love a bigger budget, eventually, to possibly employ this strategy for higher end cams such as the Canon C's, but the low overhead of the hybrid gear is effective for doing this sort of stuff on the cheap. Also, I like shooting doc video on a photo camera. I think it offers a certain comfort among subjects/people. It does often seem that they aren't indimidated by that as much as they are with "big" or "real" gear.

Make a great trailer, and I mean exceptional and compelling. I'm not talking about technical expertise, I'm talking storytelling. Make people interested in the things they see in that preview. If you feel you can't accomplish this on your own, get someone that can. When submissions come into our fest, it's super easy to see if a film has something to say, or not, based on the filmmaker's ability to present a worthwhile trailer. The preview is the first hurdle in a submission, so make sure you clear it. Also, I will say, based on what we do at our festival, if you acknowledge in your film synopsis that you are a film maker that will 100% attend festivals you're accepted to, that can help tip the scale a little. Thats for our festival anyway...others not so much. But again, know who you're submitting to and that will get you a long way.

I help run a festival. If a film is good and fits what we're looking for, no problem. The thing is, you really got to be honest about your film. Or, allow others to be honest about it. You better have a thick skin about that. A filmmaker needs to know the level his/her work is at and also if it fits the vibe of the festival they're submitting to. We shuffle through lots of crap that is obviously a ridiculous vanity project and/or has no business being sent to us because of what kind of fest we offer.

Yeah, with the GX85, there's a lot of good info in the highlights. FWIW, I just expose "normal" and take it from there. I like it okay too. For me, it's not the most useable camera I've had, but it's solid and will get the job done. It's a truck: utilitarian and incredibly useful. Sportscars are more fun to drive, sure, but you can't haul a load of wood in 'em. Sometimes, if not most times, you just need to haul wood.

Emulation is the initial step into developing craft. As it is with all endeavors that are creative. How artistic one is able to make things depends on the individual. Still, we all need a grasp of the craft to make the art. Some are good at it. Others? Not so much. Nothing new in that regard. This is why blogs about camera gear are far more traffic'ed than places where creative things are discussed. It's easy to dabble in the craft of things. Being truly creative and interesting is ridiculously hard-- not to mention emotionally vulnerable if you're doing it honestly. The "craft-vs-art-mix" is why I lean to making docs rather than narrative. I like to think I understand my abilities and limitations and angle my efforts in directions that are more appropriate for me.

I like the idea of doing current work with my 'ol hacked GH1 and a chinese-speed-boosted 50mm. That's, what, $250 for all that? Kinda wish I still had that camera...or had the nerve to stop buying new stuff and just be creative with what I got.

In this digital age can we start calling pixel-peepers nitpickers? Nice to carry along a little archaic etymology into our brave new world.

Did you use their version of proxies? What do they call it? "Optimized" or something. Last time I tried, it failed miserably which was too bad. I was eager and hopeful it was going to be my next platform. True. I think I hijacked the thread a bit talking about post-production and it went a little sideways. I believe my initial post was an agreement that most folks use 8-bit for faster working, so to compare this cam to other 8-bit cams is not unreasonable. Looks like a fine camera in all respects.

Resolve just didn't seem robust enough to handle doc film editing though. Hoping the newer versions get there, but it felt under baked the last time I was on it.

There seems to be lots of oddities about RAW workflow (for me) that are counterintuitive and/or (as you say) self-defeating.

Ha ha! Funny sarcasm.

Perpetual discontent among consumers, next best thing, etc. It's good for industry sales; much like designed obsolescence.

I would love to have a workflow that allowed me to rotate a few c-fast cards while off loading raw footage to a hard drive RAID. From there: work on said footage via proxies in an NLE, finalize my edit, color-grade those relevant raw files, and then media manage to save ONLY the final cut source footage. Storing the remaining 30-60-90 minutes of RAW is demanding, but not too overwhelming, right? However, my big RAW gripe, unless I'm grossly mis-informed and things have shifted in the past year or so, is that the typical RAW work flow seems to put a lot of file color processing before the actual editing. If so, I really can't work effectively that way. I mean, I could, but not in a practical manner. --Not with doc style shooting where I need to track just about every second that's shot. Anyway, RAW is neat-o in theory, but seems to need a lot of people to make it viable for a heavy-lifting-fast-paced sort of production. And, yes, many boutique biz'nesses in low end productions aren't going to mess with it often because of the extra work involved. There's always gonna be folks that do wonderfully pretty things with RAW and then post them on vimeo for all of us to drool over how great it looks, but those folks are the outliers. I mean, for instance, you're not going to see any of my low-end-real-estate videos shot on RAW, but those productions are what allows me to buy this stuff to begin with. For my world, I can see the reasoning why comparing the 8-bit to the 8-bit is justified. Not just for this particular scenario, but for all cameras.

Horizontal distortion of bright light sources. My Canon A1 Hi-8 camera was especially "good" at it. (a shitty camera that cost twice as much as a GH5, btw) However, the funky light smears we got from old cathode ray tube video cameras always looked really cool to me. Actually, it's too bad someone doesn't make a (ridiculously impractical) UHD CRT camera. It's a unique look.

Being brutally honest, most of us here are just camera consumers, right? How many of us are truly filmmakers? I mean, truly? I know I'm not half as prolific as I should be to call myself a "filmmaker." Not really. I feel more like an enthusiast than a filmmaker. In addition to that, it's much more satisfying to complain about stuff I want, but then is undelivered --when it's not perfect, that's a convenient excuse to avoid doing the difficult creative work. (Well, okay, I'm projecting...but I've had my GH5 for a month now and haven't really done anything special with it.) Point is, if you put a decent camera in my hands, I should be able to make something. If I don't, it's not because a company failed to deliver an "x" or a "y" or a "z." Anyway, that's my filmmaker existentialism...pay it no serious mind. Turn back to talk about skin tones, MSRP, and camera mounts.

I'd say card, first guess.

Man...every time I think I've landed on a lucrative niche market for my productions I find I've already been beaten to the punch.

Someone on the internet is offended?