fuzzynormal

While a lot of folks will concentrate on IQ, color, DR, etc., and demand the best in that regard, I find that, for me, other features can be more practical for my productions. The built in Oly 5-axis has been really fun and rewarding to utilize.

FWIW, I shot a small project for a friend yesterday. No budget and a favor. Since the stakes were pretty low and everything was casual, I shot it with the EM5II and an old manual 55mm Canon f1.2 FD lens ($200ebay). The lens was mounted on the cheap Chinese speed booster ($100eBay). Love the old glass so far. Really like the renderings I get from it. And it's radioactive! So that's cool. Anyway, 95% is the EM5II handheld and that FD lens, with a few random shots from a 5D. Here it be @720 for your discriminating consideration. I feel like I'm getting good value out of the speed booster old lens combo:

I don't have to, you just did. Love my car, but yeah, I do have to change the water pump.

I was speaking figuratively, but the literal isn't a surprise.

FWIW, I would love to hear you, or anyone, explain that opinion. And I'm not being snarky or anything. I would genuinely like to hear from someone that is earnestly impressed with his work and why it deserves any recognition beyond the superficial. It seems to me he's the directing equivalent of a guy that knows a lot of vocabulary but can't diagram a sentence...and he yells all his words with lots of exclamation points. So, yeah, not a fan, but I'll listen to reason. As it stands, I will grant you that he's at a modern vanguard of deconstructing the expectation of cohesive film narrative.

Actually, I always argue with box office, record sales, home improvement design, etc. Creating materials and content for the largest collection of market requires a certain mundanity that allows for that broad appeal. It's why comedy slapstick will never go away. A 5 year old and a 95 year old can relate to it; Rich man or poor man. It's not anything great, just silly. Which is fine, but nothing that necessarily needs to be exalted and appreciated on a particularly impressive level. On the other hand, you can't hand Faulkner to a 12 year old and expect him to have any profound self-reflection after reading through it. You can't get most people to do that. It's just beyond their grasp. Thus, less accessible. Which book is more impressive and which has broader appeal: http://tinyurl.com/ogmx44b or http://tinyurl.com/nc4n33d Same concept goes for the cheap door you'd buy at a Home Depot or that new Taylor Swift album. So, no, I don't readily agree that financial success is in any way a marker of creative success. Not in this society. The complete opposite.

Ah. I'd suggest that if you're getting too much friction on your slider a trick to alleviate some of that jitteriness is to rotate the slider on the z-axis. This effectively changes the center of gravity more to the balance point of your camera rig while not changing the direction of the slide. Once the tension is lessened the slide should become nice and smooth. For instance, If I shoot a slider shot with a light 50mm prime on my 5D, then the weight of the camera is close to the center of the actual slider plate and it moves easily. However, if I put on a big and heavy 24-70mm redband lens, then the balance point is farther away from the center and it can bind the slider plate. A simple counter-angle adjustment moves that center point back to a more manageable useful spot. Any of that make sense? Anyway, that solution might cost less than buying a new camera body. For production problems like this I like to recommend to change your technique, not the technology.

Ha! Sarcasm, right?

Surely. which is why I'm complaining about people leveraging technology like a grumpy old man. (and I am a grumpy old man, trust me) Maybe people like Verna Fields were just as disappointed with the advance of things like the AVID in the 1990's? I don't know, but when people are asking algorithm to do things so fundamental to the process it just rubs me the wrong way. I mean, it's just music. You listen to it, comprehend the structure, and use that to your advantage in your edit as you see fit. It's subjective and some of the basics of the editing craft. I mean, this seems so obvious it's hard to imagine even a newb brushing aside the simple process of listening to a track and instead wanting to find software to do the job; your job as an editor. Do you really want to remove the human element from an (assumedly) artistic endeavor? If your answer is 'yes' then have at it, I suppose.

Maybe I don't understand, if your cam is already mounted on a slider, why would it need IS?

I have the em5ii and it's really a lot of fun. I mean, I can do stuff handheld that's cool as heck, and pretty easy. That said, however, image stabilization is not a style you'd want to do for everything. The more hand held look does have a certain organic vibrancy for particular scenes. you can't really pan and tilt with IS, and landing a moving shot is not really possible without a robotic/algorithmic visual "snap." So, while I feel the em5ii IQ is actually pretty acceptable, (a lot of folks dismiss it) turning off the stabilizer is something I do on the em5ii from time to time without much regret. It still records a nice image and the colors are pretty good too Point is, all these tech thingies are just tools. Use em where appropriate and you'll be fine. And if your camera doesn't have a certain feature set, so what!? Make do without it.

I don't know who you're talking about.

There's a big difference between "real" cameras and the kind of stuff hobbyists and industrial shooters (like me!) use. I shot 4 different projects this week, and two of them were last minute things, so renting on my level is not really viable. I need something to go out the door with without much lead time. Also, for the crap I do, I get paid less than it costs to provide craft services to a real shoot. I need a camera that's cheap and easy. That's my end of the pool. BTW, I shot an actual Super Bowl spot once. With a Canon XH-A1 no less. Actually, it was a CBS media network promo, does that count?

My wife and I went to Spain a few years back to make a humble, simple, and impressionistic travel film; labor of love sort of thing. We were going to shoot it with multiple cameras/lenses... but when we got there and spent a few week on a paid assignment before our personal film making, we began to debate about the visuals --and ultimately decided that the most cohesive look would be to film with one camera and one 50mm lens. Nothing else. No audio or tripod even. So we put all the other gear in storage and went into our shoot with a 5D and an old piece of Nikon glass. Also, we'd film it, for better or worse, with the max aperture., f1.4. Our reasoning was that since the subject was supposed to be a reverent and sometimes mystical experience, the aesthetic of shallow DOF would heighten that sense. In the end I believe it worked well enough, but I've never shot a project like that before or since. Doubt I will again. It just happened to fit the vibe.

Ha! Gotta love the biblical colloquialisms/parable. Haven't heard that one in awhile! As it is, if anyone wants to hire me for corporate rhetoric consulting, my fee is only $500/hr.

Yup. There it is. I was played for chump. My ticket was for AMC and IMAX. Those two together in crime, I guess. Welp, not that they care, but that's my last time going to one of their theaters.

Well, in retrospect, I guess I should have done my due diligence and researched the production chain of the film I was going to see. "Buyer Beware" and all that. Still, there's something disagreeable with going to see a IMAX branded projection of a film, (and paying a premium price for it) and then getting an highly inferior image. Not smart on the IMAX biz-ness front, IMHO. It diminishes the brand. Yes, the master digital format is 2k. Odd in of itself, and then to bump it up for an IMAX projection? Bad idea. I mean, there were shots that I could see every single sharpening decision they attempted in Resolve. Focus was soft on that shot? Sharpen the eyes! All of those post production tricks were right in your face. In a way, it was ultimately kind of fascinating. Like watching a DVD six inches from the monitor. It's also ironic that while film is often considered the holy grail of image acquisition by older industry folks, this particular example illustrates how that legacy can be tarnished. Anyway, I wouldn't have expected a major distribution film like this to have this sort of flaw, but that's how the industry is doing things and I guess they felt they could get away with it. I just wouldn't have ever expected that a film, actually shot on film, and projected in a theatre would be woefully inferior to "video." But, based on what they decided to do, there's my testimony.

What's that? All I see is a muppet.

No doubt. Personally, I like standard and portrait. That's just me. Then again, I'm also enamored with Malick, so it's all good. Do not talk to me about Bay. I like to pretend he doesn't exist.

Man, does EVERYTHING have to be some sort of damn algorithm these days? This is the arts (supposedly). Just do it for yourself. If you can't find rhythm in an edit, I don't know how you're ever going to be a successful editor. So say I, grumpy old man. Now get off my lawn.

Still on the wide-side, but if it works for you, that's great. I'd consider renting the 1dc in the future for certain jobs. I'd love to see the used price come down a little more though --and maybe just buy it; depends on future work and how other camera models depreciate. I lean to smaller gear and shoot a lot of stuff on m43, (talk about being unassuming when shooting video, try a GM1) but who knows...

Just curious. Why so wide? Not typically cinematic at that short range. Not knocking it, mind you, just wondering if you like that look better or if you're doing something wide-specific.

Did you see it in IMAX? I'm thinking the larger format really exposed the flaws. Then again, it was so bad I'm not ruling out projectionist mistake. Maybe a condition of all issues, who knows? All I do know is that I got screwed paying extra for this sub-part screening. Oh well.

Yeah, the "IMAX" treatment I feel was definitely a bit of a scam. Shot on Kodak film, finished in digital post at 2k, and then upscaled for IMAX projection? That's not cool. For small-ish multiplex screens it sort of makes sense, but at my screening I truly felt I was being unfairly exploited by the IMAX branding.

At my screening it didn't look like film and it didn't look like video... Actually, it looked like a film transferred to a DVD then digitally up scaled and projected. So...both? In other words, it looked kinda like a mess.