fuzzynormal

I honestly have never heard of WeChat. I'll brag about that. (I think?) Oh, wait, I just googled it. Yeah, it's that messaging app that's popular in Europe. Yes. I remember that it came preinstalled on my Nokia-6300-mostly-dumb-phone. Let me tell you, seriously, there's some liberation knowing that one has gotten older than the cultural zeitgeist --and it doesn't really affect them anymore. FOMO? That desire has been snuffed. It's kind of nice, this bubble of ignorance. I can see the appeal now. (might be why I'm still filming stuff on a GH1 13 years on. Anyway, musings of an old man. If anyone wants to know how I used to walk to school uphill in snowstorms, drop me a DM)

There's a time and a place for everything, right? For instance, my family just got word that my 20 year old nephew has Hodgkin's--Anyone telling my family they can't "discern" things, for whatever reason, would be rather unwelcome. Please, let's all try to be kind, empathetic, and aware.

Horrible news. So many of us have been cruelly affected by cancer in our families. Fuck cancer. Be loved and give love Andrew. Embrace what you can while you can. Never let go.

Oh, I don't actually know. If your post-production workflow looks better to your eye, then stick with it. There's no right or wrong answer here. Although I would say that if your final rendered movie files look okay, and if it's doing some macro blocking only during editing playback, then I personally wouldn't bother with transcoding; 422 data storage demands increase for instance. Again, if that doesn't matter to you, then no worries.

Does the M1 handle AVCHD footage decently as well? If so, shouldn't you skip the transcoding?

Sorry if I missed it, but what editing system are you using? I had 5DtoRGB for the longest time, but gave it up when I left FCP7 all those years ago. Proxy editing kind of makes 5DtoRGB sort of unnecessary in my post workflow.

I think the point he was getting at was this: if you lowered the SS to 24fps you would find the digital stabilization process introducing visual artifacts, thereby making the image rather unusable. Be that as it may, personally I find high shutter speed video in general quite unusable and unattractive. Unless it's a visceral visual effect that helps tell a story (Saving Private Ryan) then I'd rather not see high SS at all. Of course, there are post-plug-ins that do emulate motion blur...buuuuttt, that's tricky too on the IQ.

I like IBIS for run-n-gun-handheld standard talking head corporate work. Takes the edge off footage and makes it palatable for clients. I also abuse the hell out of slow-mo for corporate work. For instance, stuff like this: I definitely don't like it for more cinematic work. Shot one of my latest docs with it and I was, like, "Nope, not doing that again." AF? I don't care to worry about it. Manual focusing just looks cool and I'm half way decent with pulling it, so I'll stick with MF.

Modern culture is in a bit of a vortex with this, I think. It's not just cameras. Society has to figure out if it can evolve beyond this somehow --or if the majority of us are perfectly fine with being sophisticatedly exploited by our corporate overlords. I still visit forums because that's my comfort zone. It's a form of interaction built upon years of usenet and also the communal gee-whiz-ness of personal computers from back in the day. But, hell, I was born in the 60's, man. I lived in a different world. Your earlier metaphor is apt. Some of us like a novel, but most people prefer a photo pamphlet.

Sure is. We had the renaissance just over a decade ago and now we're finally in a different landscape. In the early 'Aughts consumers really couldn't make cinema level image quality. I mean, the best we could do back then was rig up those goofy lens adapter machines and film a rotating disc capturing light from vintage lenses with a camcorder. The Sea-change unfolded starting with the 5DII and it was always a wild ride. Now? Damn near everyone has a pretty awesome motion picture imaging device. I know for myself I'm actually retro and like to play with things well behind the bleeding edge. For instance, there's not a lot of people in general that would be interested anymore in me hacking another GH1 like I did last week, but in 2010? Man, that would launch a thread of a 1,000 responses.

I'll use whatever I think delivers what I want. The market is the market and it'll probably fragment the photo/hybrid cam segment by shifting demand, but that's been ongoing, as mentioned. Honestly, I'm playing with tools I never really thought I'd have easy access to, so I'm good with whatever moving forward.

To use that word and not take advantage of the pun, I guess he wasn't kidding when he said he didn't know much about lighting.

Same sensor as the GX7? 'Cuz that's really my favorite. I lost that camera and regret it to this day. I should buy another one just so I can put it on my shelf and smile at it.

Another tip: if you can find a spot with space, it gives you some flexible filming options. Here's a bunch of shots from a very unsophisticated talking head video I made last year. Shot it in 3 hours. We only had 1 location for 9 people. Had to make the setting change visually from interview to interview to interview just to break things up. Did some adjustments to the back ground light and camera angle between sit-downs. Quick and easy. The two lights being used on the interview subject never really changed. A small softbox front key and a backlight was it, ambient through window blinds was my fill. Just shuffled the variables and tried to get different looks. Ultimately, it doesn't take a lot to do a lot. And, as said, I always, always, always start with killing the room lights. See what you get, then continue. Finally, here's my biggest dumb tip of all if you want to shoot something faster than you actually should: Rotate 360 and try to find the light that allows the subject to be a few stops above the background. Aim to achieve that visual separation. Hold out the back of your fist at arms length, squint really hard, and get a sense if that's happening. For instance, if you're holding your fist in front of a window, it's going to be a silhouette, rotate yourself 180 and your fist is most likely going to be the opposite, right? Rotate another 30 degrees and you might actually start to see some interesting 'light-moulding' starting to happen. Anyway, it's pretty easy to start seeing light in your work spaces once you know what you're looking for. It doesn't have to be some esoteric maths formula (even though it can be). Just a smidgen of wisdom and practice can get you through.

I'm also a big fan of getting subjects as far away from any walls as possible. Depends on what you're doing, but that's a neat subtlety. I've had clients ask me as I move them to the opposite end of the room (so there's a ton of depth behind 'em, while I'm scrunched in a corner with my camera), "What are we doing over here"? "The light is really nice here and you're looking awesome" Yeah... I'm always always always looking for depth. I really don't like it when a videographer makes an already small room look smaller.

Yes. Study how photons do their thing. Even look at renaissance art. Seeing light, which you're starting to do, is the only way to get a handle on it. I just hired a shooter to do a gig and talked to him about everything required on the shoot, including turning off the practical lights and utilizing natural light entering through the windows and controlling the subject's location to maximize the look to his advantage. In one ear and out the other. He left the florescents on. Footage looks like shit. Actually, keeping light "small" is important to me. I like filming and lighting with maximum dimness, or at least having the light go through room in an interesting way. I also like taking the camera sensor and lens f-stops to the edge of their capabilities so the room can be darker. All this allows for more interesting light falloff and controls the ambient if you're running anfd gunning.

Some of the best footage I ever shot was with a 1" CCD, so these little camcorders can certainly do the trick.

Astute. However, at least in our festival the selection committee and the judges aren't the same folks. So we have a smidge of integrity there. But yeah, a lot of them still definitely judge on thematics, not craft.

You're absolutely correct. I'd add you're definitely better positioned as a specialist to maintain a successful career than I am as a one-man-band-guy.

Said this here before but... As someone that's on a film-festival selection committee with a bunch of joe-lunchbox-folks, it becomes very obvious what floats their boat. Horribly or lazily crafted films with a theme they like get the thumbs up while beautiful films with challenging material gets ignored. They can watch stories that look incredibly lame but if they dig the film's message they'll be totally into it and forgive so much. So, so, so much. You all would probably get upset seeing how tolerant they are of bad craft. So as it was, so shall it always be. That's not to say us low-budget video folks shouldn't strive for a higher level of craft, but these minutiae levels of refinement shouldn't necessarily go before the bigger design, y'know? I mean, 3 extra stops of DR is nice, but if you're shooting a shitty script or boring documentary ...what's that DR really doing for ya aside from self-edification (which is okay, btw, if that's all you want).

There’s a theory that says conflict to attain creativity is something that actually enhances creativity. Limitations get the creative juices flowing. If you want to dive into the whole evolutionary benefit of this phenomenon, you can mull that over too.

Since movies are supposed to be a magical representation of our reality, there's always going to be a place for B&W. The lack of chroma makes it inherently unique and other-worldly. Because there's not as much visual data as with color, the frame focuses the viewer's attention to other aspects of the image. If you like cinema, it's really hard not to like what B&W gives you. I'm biased, I guess, because I've always been a fan of old movies and my dad let me use his darkroom when I was a kid. Developing cheap B&W film was quick and easy. Shooting a roll a day with a high-schooler's part-time-work wages was doable -- and a ton of fun.

Yeah, that’s what I did. Was a small player in a silly bar band as a hobby outside of the gigs. It was nice. I knew punching a clock 9-5 wasn’t going to be a future I’d be comfortable with, so I walked away from that in my twenties and went freelance. Feast or famine ain’t for everybody with employment, but as a single guy with always a little bit of savings it wasn’t too hard to manage. Also, I had some exciting clients that really enriched my life… the places on this planet I’ve been is kind of bananas. No regrets in that regard. At this point I’m an old dog and the new tricks of modern media creation are simply mediocre expectations rather than the “gee-wiz that’s cool” impressions that I could deliver in the past. Sure is interesting to see an entire profession move beyond one’s capabilities.

Damn. I’m in trouble!

My favorite doc I’ve ever made was on handheld LUMIX cams without stabilization.