fuzzynormal

I had the D90. I shot video with it. It was pure shit. Horrible image. Embarrassing, really. Also, fwiw, putting old glass on any camera gives one a manual aperture.

Are you curious if they will literally respond by adapting their products, or are you just wondering what they're doing next? Their production pipeline stretches over years.

I do indy stuff for broadcast and I can tell you I don't obsess over IQ. The shows I've shot and broadcast this year look better than anything that came down the pipe from the guys doing productions in-house with their high end production gear. That result has nothing to do with cameras or properly calibrated displays. Obsession over other elements of the production, like story, visual compositions, cinematography, and editing, is much more justified. Calibrate your own stuff, do your best, and don't worry about it.

Yes. You work with the limitations. Lots of hybrid cameras don't allow this function. The in body stabilization. Also, they're cheaper.

I've been surprised to find how enamored I've been with the Olympus cameras. They're far from perfect, but I just like 'em. The model I've been using is the EM5's. And even thought the EM5II doesn't spec out as good as the LUMIX stuff, it just works better. Ultimately, that makes it a better production tool, for me, than. say, the GX85...even though the GX85 does shoot better looking video.

Artistic and/or craft contentment from the work; hopefully allowing one to make a simple living from it. I get what you mean, but (to get pedantic) this is inherently impossible. The best one can do is to try and be fair in service of a truth. The craft and art are always at contradiction to objectivity. Almost everything about filmmaking is subjective. I suppose you could screen footage from a security camera as a doc and call it extremely objective, but even then someone had to decide what the best angle of that camera would be. And that's not even considering the craft of structuring story and editing. If anything, docs are more, in a weird way, subjectively manipulative than narrative work.

Neither could I, but there it is. Randomly. Rather annoying. Not the biggest problem in the world, but when you're at the desk for months on end, that time adds up. Who knows what it is? Indeed. Same hardware all around except the integrated sound card, so you just bypass that with an external. You can literally buy the same components, just half the price and then you also allow yourself upgrade room. When I got my latest PC a half year ago, it was specifically for Premiere and to have a machine that would push the numbers, which it does. I really wanted to like and embrace the setup. But the fact that I can edit faster and easier on a 9 year old iMac literally using the same projects, that's enough for me to switch back to OSX. Too bad too. The first short film I edited on a consumer non-linear editing system was a simple comedy skit I did back in 1994. It was a PC and Premiere must have been version 1.5 or something. 3 years later I used Premiere for a local TV series. A few years after that, my first 16mm film was cut on Premiere and a PC. But when FinalCut came out. Forget it. The integrated system, great hardware, and commitment of Apple to the product made it a no-brainer. When things went wrong with FCP, you could figure out a real answer back then. With Premiere, it was a crap shoot. The hardware variables were maddening. Trying to figure out deep BIOS settings, IRQ address numbers, manual OS registry editing; it was all computer sciency-bull shit to try and get all the components and software to play nice. It was a time suck rabbit hole. No thank you. On the other hand, the DIY nature of PC builds is kind of fun... Now with hackintosh, everything old is new again.

I've spent the last year hoping back and forth between Premiere 2015.3 on Windows10 and Premier on OSX. I can't tell you the number of times I've clicked the mouse on the Windows machine within Premiere, have it do nothing, click it again, and have it finally work. Endless Windows quirks like that. Maddening. Never an issue on the 9 year old iMac that opens and edits the same project. Just sayin' Of course, hitting the render button on the Windows machine is fun. So, my next step is Hackintosh all the way. The joys of cheap swappable PC hardware and the Apple OS combined together...I'll go that route since I'm more of a power user with OSX anyway. Agreed. The trashcan machine is an insult to professionals. That said, I bought a "cube" once back in the day. Of course, the cube never claimed it was a high performance pro rig.

Thank you for the advice. I'll continue to play with RAW and see if I can get to a place that I'm comfortable with. The 444 examples give me hope. Potentially: Shoot RAW, transcode to 444, create proxies in Premiere from that, edit, grade, export. I suppose that's the extra step that bugs me. I want to grade completely after the cut, not at all before. Anyway, I've hijacked the thread, so I'll bow out...

Thanks. I'll continue to dabble with my 5D with option 1, but, as I understand it, anytime there's a transcode going on as mentioned with option 2, you've pretty much baked in your image by doing the encoding, so you wouldn't be able to pull effectively in the grade, which is the whole idea with RAW files; lots of post control. Shooting RAW for a direct transcode kind of defeats that purpose, wouldn't it? Which is something the OP should keep in mind. What workflow would they be aiming for with the $3K camera? Maybe the OP wouldn't mind dealing with RAW.

I'd love a URL link to a video outlining useful workflows so I could get a better handle on it. Maybe the path I'm on is the wrong one. Also, perhaps it's because I'm shooting docs, that dissuades my embrace of the RAW workflow. When the shooting ratios of the footage to final cut are so high, the process of manually "touching" every single clip to get them into the project is just too impractical. Based on how I've been understanding it, the "quick" RAW workflow doesn't deliver a big advantage IQ wise, and the "slow and simple" / "laborious" option are out for reasons stated. But, please, if anyone has an example of a RAW solution that would jibe with doc shooting, my goodness, I'd love to see a video. Thanks!

Of course, that's good for interviews as well. Allows a better report and interaction with the subject. So often film making is not about the visuals.

Yes. My theory is pretty straightforward: ISO is only one of the exposure variables. The amount of actual light (ambient/direct) in the setting, as well as the speed of the lens makes a huge difference. When you can shoot at 10KISO in a room with decent light and a fast f-stop, it's going to hide the noisy shadows, right? This footage, while technically in a low light situation, also has lots of ambient light bouncing around in the corners. There's a good scoop of photons for the sensor. On the other hand, when you get someone shooting 10KISO in significantly dim situations and a slow lens, then blacks will be the majority of the frame. Flaws will be more obvious. Bottom line, it's all relative. Take it all with a grain of salt. Consider the context of the shots (and operator skill set) when trying to judge this stuff on youtube and otherwise. Or, as mentioned, it could be a straight out misrepresentation to cynically garner attention. Such is the early 21st century in which we live.

Yup. As a doc filmmaker, I could work with that. ;-) 10KISO and a f.095 lens? That's handy for dark scenes. I might actually be able to make a film or something now!

Thanks for being willing to give this a test and share here on EOSHD. I've been curious as well. This setup, depending on how it renders DOF with wide open medium format lenses, might be ideal for documentary/corporate "talking head" interview production. Extreme shallow DOF and good low light offers an ease of interview shooting that potentially could justify it? I could see this as a dedicated rig for only that purpose if the advantage was there. If not, full frame and a 55mm f1.2 still looks awesome.

I've used a pro level Dropbox account for a few years now. No problem here regarding large files. It also will allow for upload interruption and continuation without trouble. So if your signal drops when uploading a huge file, it's no big deal. It just keeps going when you reconnect to the internet.

Depends on how much Depth-Of-Field you want or don't want. ND is typically used to allow slower shutter speeds as well as lower f-stops.

Not to hijack the thread, but I've been frustrated by the workflow of hacked RAW. Just a bit backwards and cumbersome for my style. Not that it's a bad image, but, man, you really need to put a huge "in depends or your production" asterisk on ML acquisition.

A pragmatic consideration is how the extra mass on a beer bottle (or fabricated prop that looks like a beer bottle) will affect the movement. If it's too heavy, you'll run up against some "uncanny valley" sort of physicality. Might not be a big deal based on your idea, or might be. You may have to settle on a lighter rig.

My recommendation is to consider longer focal lengths for what your going for. I've been shooting with a canon fd 55mm f1.2 and a cheap speed booster. It's not a pristine image/high contrast image, which is why I like it. The longer focal length appeals to me, emulates some "filmlook" mojo, and looks more flattering for capturing portraits/people. Plus, it's very fast, even though I don't often shoot with it wide open. That glass combo is about $325. Getting used to going narrower on the field of view is a challenge, but the visual rewards are worth it, imho. This glass on my stabilized gx85 or em5ii has been a lot of fun to shoot handheld. On the other hand, as mentioned, the Speedboosted Sigma 18-35mm Art F1.8 would give you one lens with more focal length options.

Uh-oh. As I said, good luck.

Trying to help friend-o. You claimed Red cameras need a slow pan. It's a fact you said that. It's also false. It's not brand specific. I was just clarifying the issue as you and I are not the only ones potentially reading this stuff. And FWIW, the actual advice from the specific person you requested was the same advice as various other posters. And, I'd bet that you do need some more guidance about camera operation, but each of us has to find our own way --and at least you're here trying. That's something. We all keep learning. Good luck.

No, that's not accurate. It has nothing to do with the brand of camera. This is just fundamental camera operation. Shutter speeds and frame rates affect motion blur. Those things are constant across every motion picture camera made in the last 100+ years. It's okay if you don't fully grasps these concepts yet. But, definitely make it a point to understand them if you want to develop your craft.

Welp. everyone's gotta start somewhere. As they say, "There's no such thing as a dumb question..." Just because a question might betray someone's comprehension of things doesn't make the question in of itself ridiculous. After all, learning about this stuff now will lead to a better skill set down the line. Here's some 101 level info I found quickly using the world wide web information super highway search engine provided by google.com: http://www.red.com/learn/red-101/camera-panning-speed

Well, we don't know how violently the lens was panning when those shots were taken. Looks well within normal motion blur probability to my eye. Why are we looking at stills anyway? The c100 is a video camera. The OP should upload the actual clip.