fuzzynormal

Spot on review. As a video shooter I'm in the camp of it's "just good enough." If the IQ was any weaker I'd probably go to another cam... But I do love the 5-axis for what it lets me do handheld. Since my gigs are for the web, the IQ is perfectly acceptable. Also, the colors look good to my eye. Btw, the bat grip w/headphones is great. Not only for the audio, but the ergos of it really helps shooting.

FWIW, that film looked like absolute crap on IMAX. I always considered a hipster to be someone ignorant that professes an unearned expertise. Basically all looks, no substance. Superficial. I'd say that Quentin is a legit cinephile that is also somewhat accomplished at this point, yes?

My recent anecdotal experience of watching Mission Impossible on IMAX confirms his prejudice. I was actually embarrassed for the studio releasing such visual low quality onto the public. As for a filmmaker doing a novel homage to the technical craft, nothing wrong with that. Why not?

I'm not talking about what is the best solution for you, I'm talking about what it takes to get the best looking shot. That qualification was mentioned earlier Large steady can rigs with a good op can not be beat for impressive tracking shots, and I just don't see that changing -for reasons mentioned- regardless of new tech. You or I won't bother with such large rigging and will adapt with alternatives, but that doesn't mean the old way is still not superior visually.

I don't know. The heavier something is the less likely you're gonna get that noticeable y-axis bounce. "We will see solutions" might be too optimistic. A "configuration-that-almost-works-as-good-as-a-steady-cam-for-less-than-discrimiating-users" is more likely. All this algorithm stuff and stabilized internal sensors is cool and all, and will get you kind of close to a good tracking shot, but the "real-thing" works in large part because it weighs a lot. If you're using a small light weight cam you just move it more because you can. It lacks mass to slow things down. And too much random movement is distracting in a shot that's supposedly being stabilized. And I can tell you from my experience, when you move the EM5II body too fast, you get an unattractive motion artifact as the stabilizing sensor will over compensate. So, it is a bit amusing that all this new technology still can't surpass a good steady cam op's work from the 1970's. It's great that stabilization is available and all, but the new way is not always going to be the best way. Slow and heavy might be an asset rather than a liability depending on what you wanna do and what sort of camera configurations are necessary for a particular production. As some Scottish dude said in an outer spacey TV show: "You can no' change the laws of physics."

As a guy that utilizes the EM5II often, I can attest that it's definitely NOT really comparable to steady cam rigs. What steady cam does and how it does it is a whole lot different than sensor "floating" Bottom line: to get really smooth motion having some sort of a rig with a bunch of mass is going to probably look the best; might not be practical, but it'll offer the smoothest shots.

Indeed. Point taken. I'm trying by attempting to find interesting people --and then doing justice (as best I can) to tell the stories that define them. Maybe one way to do that is to use a OSMO. It's possible. Who knows?

Andrew mentions it... When every hipster in the world has awesome image IQ and steady shots, what will you be doing that makes your work more impressive than that trust fund kid standing in the same spots as you? Creating interesting stories is what's gonna matter. Tell a better story. Be a better editor. Those skills are your future currency.

Wait, Are you implying artistic imaging skill matters more than what particular sensor is used? Because that sort of rationale isn't going to get much traction here on the 'ol interwebs.

Here are some old examples from me. I wouldn't say this is the same style as the video we're talking about. However, there are sound editing techniques in a simple sports PR series I did in 2013 that are kinda-sorta similar. It's not a complex technique, just a little time consuming. And building a nice unexpected but motivated soundscape in an edit always takes it up a notch. Sound is always good to concentrate on. Basically, just getting in there with curious elements can create a nice context to an edit.

Regardless on how more successful they are in development (or are not) than other manufacturers, I tend to think a 21% number would be somewhat unsettling to the people in Canon's board rooms.

Just out of curiosity, because I never go there, what's the culture of that DVX forum like? Is it just really buttoned-up or something?

Not too hard: A character's POV as he/she is overwhelmed by sensation. I mean, I think I've already seen something similar on "Homeland" for instance, as the bipolar protagonist has a cope during an emotional breakdown. Sci-Fi: Some sort of temporal time travel. Thriller: interspatial montage as the hero travels to a new location... Whatever. The main thing is that creating dynamic edits that actually controls the viewer's eye movement in a deliberate way is a basic and effective technique. Even "slow" edits should do the same if the material demands it.

Editing is a "hidden" part of the filmmaking craft. When done right, it contains incredible power without being too noticed. The interesting thing about this sort of technique is how very very assertive it is while still keeping many things "hidden" --such as audio...and by visually connecting seemingly disparate elements. It's a sort of paradox. It's also visual candy. Its an impressionistic film, yes. And not one that is meant to be direct narrative. It's fun to watch, but as a viewer you're not allowed to have much emotional connection to anyone in it. Which is fine. It's more about letting that environments sounds and images wash over you. And, yeah, it will be a "dated" look a handful of years down the road, much like the twee "maker" movies will be/are. However, that's not to say that the craft used very aggressively in this sort of work couldn't be used judiciously as an effective narrative tool in other sorts of filmmaking.

Seems like Dziga Vertov style with modern production elements. The thing to consider about the fundamental element of the style --is to be aware of how the images and transitions lead the viewer's eye very assertively.

Forgive your lighting? Why? It looks like you know what you're doing. From what I've found, much like music, what you take away is as important as what you do. The space between the notes. Those that know what to "hear" are ahead of the game.

It's epic! Especially with all those areal shots. Is it almost too epic? It's very very pretty, but I almost feel it should be more grounded. Literally. But that's me, my opinion about aerials ain't what it used to be. Nevertheless, I am very impressed with the visuals regardless of how you've implemented them in your final cut. It is truly cool that a talented newbie can grab off the shelf consumer gear and create motion picture images that rival anything you'd see from a pro. If that doesn't put the fear of god (pardon the pun) into DP's, I don't know what would. I mean, I'm assuming you're newbies...but when a guy is named "Jimy J. Hollywood" who knows? Still, how did your story turn out, ultimately? Do you like the narrative you created?

Agreed, but when you know that your story is the type that demands that sort of treatment, then you make the decision to go that route. Thus, your main consideration begins with the story --and not the fact that you just bought a cool anamorphic lens and need to figure out something to make with it.

Start with your story. It flows out from there. That's the fountain. If you know you have a good story, then you do the things and make decisions to make sure it stays a good story. As a documentary guy, I've shot things more or less identically for a film with dry information vs. a film with emotionally resonating stuff. And a good compelling story always elevates the production. I don't think it works too well in the other direction. You can decide to begin with awesome gear and base a production around what the technology offers you, but I just don't see that being the smartest way to approach a creative endeavor.

I enjoy this website because I'm a gear oriented guy. Even better because I'm a CHEAP gear oriented guy. I like consumer stuff. But gear is only one aspect of making films. The slant of user conversations on this site might imply to a neophyte reader that camera gear is the primary consideration of the film making process. That's not right or wrong, it's just the way it is. I certainly think gear should only be a secondary consideration. I'd even argue that these days it could almost be an afterthought, depending on what one is trying to accomplish. As in, "Well, we have a t3i already, let's just use that." But, really, those creatives that are going to be successful at this motion picture stuff will be able to figure that out for themselves. Those that don't, well, there's a lot of us around to write words on the internet.

If one can tell a good story chances are one can be a good filmmaker. now with the barriers to good motion picture IQ falling away, those that are creative will be the ones valued...unlike the past, where if you had the gear you were automatically established. EOSHD's 2013 review of the GM1 and GX7 lead me to get my hands on cheap consumer cams with wonderful IQ. Making movies with that gear has been a ton of fun.

I hope the Panasonic CM1 evolves and offers a little more video-wise in the next generation. Even so, I've been tempted for awhile with the current version.

I agree, brilliant advice. I'll put it into motion and see if glazed donuts with sprinkles work.

Even though it was shot on consumer grade gear, it was exposed pretty decently. I'd like to do a color grade on Resolve --as that's the software I'd like to upgrade to next year, but I'm not particular. More interested in collaborating with people with talent than anything else. Thanks! Well, that would be perfectly wonderful for someone like me. Since it was shot with a camera that shares the same sensor as a GH4, I wonder if that would generate any interest? Any suggestions on a practical way to initiate a process like that?

Thanks for the feedback. We made a sweet very straightforward little film where the theme is the importance of friendship against a society's measures of success. So, in my mind, I believe it deserves a sentimental color palette in warmer hues. Here's the blurb: "An aspiring housewife living in the heart of Japan creates an international English language publication. After three decades struggling against cultural, creative, and family challenges, her and the staff must then reckon with what it means to be successful." If you or your colleague would like to see a draft and get an idea how the footage looks, I can send along a link. Let me know if you're intrigued and I will definitely follow-up. We shot the film on Panasonic Lumix cams, the GM1 and Gx7, for whatever that's worth. And if anyone else is interested, regardless if you're "pro" or not, I'd love to hear from you. Indeed. Some people can paint even though they've never had formal training. Since that's not me, I do need some 'learn-by-example' sessions (in a bedroom or studio, I don't care) And anyone's that's good at it, that's fine by me. Thanks all!