fuzzynormal

I believe QuickTime 7 actually ignores dropouts. Or maybe I'm misremembering some of my past production experiences, but I think I may have been through this ringer once in days gone by, and Q7 got the job done. At any rate, I'm going to be archiving video stuff myself going back to the 1980's, so I have 3/4" to deal with as well...along with VHS, Beta, 8mm, SVHS, hi-8, DV, HDV, maybe even some Panasonic MII...so I feel your pain.

I have a doc I'm shooting this summer and my wife and I got the voightlander 25 and 42 f/.95 for the job. Not a lot shot with the lenses just yet, but I'm happy with the tests I've been doing. I've also been using my Oly 12-40 f/2.8 for corporate work. Looks fine. good rendering and sharpness.

Seems if you're going to shoot a strongly isolated subject and let Twixtor interpolate the frames, you'd probably get similar results via 60 or 120 source footage?

I like the way it works and that ease of use is important to me. I know a lot of people squint as hard as possible at pixels and then do as much to the spec sheet. I'm not that guy. Personally my opinion is that almost all IQ from these different modern cameras is suitable for most of my purposes... which is essentially doc films and corporate stuff. I'd shoot on a hacked GH1 if for some reason that's all I had --and not be too concerned about the camera. I'd worry about other stuff. When I'm doing things that demand more pristine acquisition I just rent.

I got two GH5's 'kuz of a film I'm doing, but also to serve a client's demands for 60p video in 4K. Thats kind of the only reason. If I didn't have that job I would have went with Olympus --as my film is 24p. Ironically, most people here are trying to run away from the "video" look, but that's what my paying job demands! On the other hand, my film will be on the other side of the IQ spectrum-aesthetic. Best of both worlds, eh? Regardless, it's a nice camera so far and It'll fit my needs just fine.

I do this. It takes hardly any time and makes the editing so much breezier. I've also served proxy files over LAN wi-fi and had it work. That's pretty handy when you need two edits of the same footage going at once.

With backlight and deep foreground/background contrast.

Imho, the thing to do with these cameras to make them look more cinematic, is to shoot with "vintage" (1970's) fast prime lenses. You get a 24mm f/2 prime and go to work. Nothing more, nothing less. The cohesiveness of shooting just 1 focal length is often dismissed, but I feel it's very important. For one thing, it sets the "look". Good, that's settled ...now go concentrate on other more important stuff. Like lighting, acting, blocking, costume design, etc. I swear to god, just accept the simplicity of using 1 lens and it will truly help make your footage look better than most...especially if your just starting out and trying to find your way. Keep it basic, clean, and beautiful. A gx85, a 24mm f2, and 24fps 4K. That's all you need IQ-wise. Seriously. That's more than fine. Consider that done. Don't worry about the tech at this point. Go make something worthwhile and compelling with it.

How subjects behave in a frame and move through it in context to the story and the camera is the essence of accomplished cinema. It is what it is. The movement and placement of actors in front of the lens creates, if one is doing it right, interesting compositions. To dismiss blocking is to dismiss the medium. To me it would be like trying to create a painting without paint.

I'd guess that image was taken with a f-stop above 8? Looks like maybe something as high as a f16? When in doubt I shoot more open on the f-stop (using ND if you have to) and the dust particles won't "resolve" onto the image (as much). Since, when traveling, I'm shooting video most of the time run 'n gun style and also swapping lenses, I default to using f2-f4 as a "safety" to avoid any aggressive dust issues I may be unaware of. It hides the problem.

I suppose Mr. E could be a proxy for our era seen from a certain rationale. But, deeper than all that, he's an selfish insecure narcissistic asshole. Something tells me those types of folks have been around since time immemorial.

Well, what were you eating yesterday, though?

Ha! Great thread. Over the course of this on line conversation I considered the GX85, mulled it over, bought one, tested it, enjoyed the results, bought another one, began to shoot 6 short documentaries with 'em, learned to resent my producer along the way, clashed creatively like I've never done before, shot a ton of misc corporate stuff, did some time-lapse that one time, finished the documentaries, sold the first one to a woman so she could take pictures of her newborn grand-daughter, sold the second one on ebay, and generally enjoyed using the camera during it all. Didn't fall in love with the GX85, but liked it plenty. Still seems like the best value for money on the market if you like smaller-sized cameras. I'll continue to recommend it.

Empower your (good) actors as true collaborators. Let them bring their best skills to the process and you'll be rewarded for it. Change the article from "the" to "a" and I'll agree with that. His "oner(s)" are a simple conceit, but take alot of work. Consider that he copped a lot of this technique from Kurosawa (among numerous others) but, really, Akira was ahead of the curve with modern film making craft. And, of course, Wells sort of re-defined the whole process of American cinema waaaay back in the day...

I like this 100 times... Not sure, but I think they hired the same guy(s) for their website GUI that got fired from the Sony menu design team. Seriously, for something as visually aesthetic as the medium of photography, it's like they're deliberately trying to rape my eyeballs with their layout.

No, but when you want the shutter is exposing at a speed LESS than the frame rate, you just lower the frame rate. If you want to shoot something with a 30 shutter, then put the frame rate to 30.

Yeah, I sold mine and kind of regret it.

I think I'll be jacking the vibrancy and color a bit; pushing it a little heightened of normal. A majority of the footage is landmarks, so skin tone isn't a priority.

Thanks for thew heads up. My wife is shooting mostly with X lenses these days and she's going to be in the field for the next few months. I'll tell her to be extra protective.

So I got an old client that has me doing some shooting this spring/summer. Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Saint Pierre/Miquelon, Gdańsk, and finally Tallinn. One of the interesting things about this tourism production house is that they've always demanded 60 fps video. This demand goes all the way back to the 1980's. One of the other things about this client is that they've NEVER done color timing/correction/grading in their productions. (unless I work on their edits, which is rare) They just take whatever is in the can and cut (well, more like gash) away. Anyway, I went ahead and got the GH5 for the upcoming gig so I could shoot 60p 4k. That part is covered. However, what about the color coming straight outta the camera? At this point with the GH5 I'm not going to be at all concerned about post-color-manipulation, LUTs, ETTR, 10 bit, blah blah blah. Nope, it's time to just bake it in from the get-go. I'd like to know any recommended settings for accurate vibrant color straight out of the kit. No muss, no fuss. Any thoughts? Anyone trying to accomplish the same out there?? Easy question that I could look up easily, but would appreciate hearing a "real-life" testimonial from someone with practical wisdom: What speed SD card is required for this?

Same issue as what swept though audio post production two decades ago. The power was suddenly in the hands of the people with digital DAW's and they couldn't mix frequencies for shit. ....and never mind their (or my) ability to actually compose something interesting.

It's visceral, literal, metaphorical, technical, and plenty of stuff in between.

Earnestness is awesome. It's such a blessing. Wish I had more of it.

Absolutely. It's so weird, of all things in the enthusiast/prosumer/motion picture world, that auto-focus is actually such a seemingly big issue to people all of a sudden. It's an embarrassment of riches across all brands and somehow AF is a deal breaker? Still not at all sure why folks aren't just okay with manually focusing their lenses like actual real-life camera operators that want to, you know, completely control capturing their images. I suppose it's all part of the 21st century digital algorithm world. Trust the machine to do the tricky work for us: Spell check our grammar, remember that one actor that played that one part in that one movie, tell us all the cool stuff we need to buy, remember how to drive home, and focus our lenses. F all that. This new fangled dangled nonsense is getting my dander up, you damn whippersnappers. The world needs more analog. You can "pry my manual lenses from my cold dead hands!" How about that? I'm complaining about the complainers! That said, I can see why AF handy, but I can't understand why anyone would trust it. At least when focusing manually your gonna get a consistent result.

If they're from WhiteCastle, I do. Nevertheless, as you can imagine (and see from the responses), the informal poll that initiated this topic reveals more about those answering the inquiry than it is about the actual video content. Again, no right or wrong about it. We all have our different things that we find interesting or not.