fuzzynormal

"Smoother" in what regard?

Well, my old 50mm Nikon looks like hell when shot wide open. Too much CA and haloing. Figure I can find something a little cleaner though and still affordable. Lots of 50's out there. Some FD glass perhaps? Pentax SMC might be good too. Might be tough finding an old lens that's sharp @f1.4, but I'm not going for a pristine image anyway, just something that holds together decently.

So, I was considering something as a new lens for interview set-up on my m43 cams. Basically, I was thinking the Voigtlander Nokton 42.5mm f/0.95 might be a good choice. Simple, straightforward, good FF focal equivalent of 85mm f/1.9 which would look pretty decent for a talking-head portrait shot. However, that lens is a 1K buy. What about something on the budget side? If I got a 55mm f1.4. and put a lens turbo speed booster adapter on a m43 cam, which has a .7 crop and a 1 stop increase, wouldn't I end up in with similar numbers to the Nokton? Or not? That's a $50 lens and a $150 adapter. Aside from the bokeh rendering quality/characteristics which would probably be better on the Nokton, seems like the $200 set-up might be close enough to what I'd like to use for interviews. What happens to the DOF when using these adapters? Anything significant there? Anyone try this in real-life --or has run the numbers in the past to offer some insight? I'm not even really aiming to get something super-sharp when doing interviews, so soft edges are okay. I can accept those sorts of adapter limitations, just kinda wondering about the FF equiv specs of that lens/adapater rig on m43. Thanks in advance...

​Couldn't disagree more. I think it's a useful guide for an upcoming purchase. Especially for the uninitiated. If you read the entire post you'll see it actually advises considerations for "hot" cameras. His conclusions in this regard on on target, imho.

​Ah, good 'ol Shenzhen China. Man, what a weird place. You want to know what modern China is really like, that's where to go. For better or worse.

​Definitely not. Brand loyalty, a strong hard-wired-to-the-brain-physiological-effect that marketers have been successfully exploiting for generations gets in the way of rationality. Humans are irrational people when willingly or unwillingly ignorant --and they rely on those "gut-decisions," typically based on familiarity, in those instances. Advertisers know this and it's why advertisements/marketing is most often built not to actively sell product but to get the familiarity of the brand stuck in your mind in a welcoming way. After all, Coca-Cola ads never sell the actual thing, they sell happiness, love, and comfort. And to get it you're encouraged to buy the can/bottle with their logo on it. Same with imaging. You want to be a great photographer you HAVE to buy a" Canikon" ...because that's what just about everybody has familiarity with. You heard about it, you know people that use it, etc. So, as us filmmakers/photographers get more informed we can make more rational decisions. Newbies can't really do this as they don't grasp the details as well, so they'll most likely tend toward Canon and Nikon unless actively exposed to different ideas. This post is an excellent example of explaining those different ideas in the context of making motion pictures. It might seem redundant to us that have been in the market for awhile, but for somebody new to it, it'll be very helpful just as a way to understand how to consider things they've never considered. Good job on articulating those basics Ebrahim, it'll definitely help someone in the future! If I could up vote this or pin it to the top of the page, I would absolutely do so!

​Yup. For whatever reason, the Japanese strive for the fast frame rate aesthetic. Not sure how they got started down that path --maybe because of the big way consumer technology is tied to their national economy, those legacy developments during the old broadcasting standard (ntsc 60i) days affected the culture? I do know the "asadora" programming has always been hugely popular and they've been doing those @60fps since the early 1960's. Almost all of their "prime-time" programming would do the same. Imagine a mini-series like "Roots" or "Edge of Darkness" grabbing the popular imagination, but instead of it being filmed at 24p on analog film, it was all shot on 60i broadcasting cameras. The Japanese would do a lot of their stuff electronically. They're both motion pictures, but obviously look really dissimilar. Point is, the Japanese now typically prefer fast frame rates with pristine zoom broadcasting lenses over the cinematic look, and that difference translates into 60fps PR videos that tend to appear way too clinical to western eyes. So, all that sort of nonsense being said, just consider the context when looking at Sony PR vids. They're coming at imaging from a different taste.

I think older cams like the af100 are always going to be relevant for guys like me. They get really affordable to buy used when the next gen hits the market. I'm actually considering buying an older cam as my corporate gigs have been up-ticking a notch. It begins to make sense depending if I land a particular contract. Those clients feel more comfortable with bigger professional looking rigs on set. They really can't tell the difference in IQ, so older and decent works for me. Now, I could just kit out some of my consumer cams with rails and matte boxes, but (aside from the fact that I really dislike that stuff on consumer gear) I'm leaning to just getting a bigger/older pro used cam and assuage the corporate guys in that regard. The older cameras also get a little cheaper to rent, which is nice too.

Yeah, you gotta list off the things you're trying to accomplish and the style you're trying to shoot. Run and gun vs. narrative storytelling. Broadcast style vs. cinematic. Lots of in between there. There's really no one-size-fits-all solution in the budget realm. (Or in the pro realm either, really.)

Fake or not, I'm not sure why people judge a camera's IQ capabilities when in the hands of obvious amateurs posting junk on youtube. Well, I guess if they want to see the limitations of the default settings and images made by GAS geeks with no visual skills... And it's not just amateurs. I mean, let's recall that official NX1 film about the lady in the fridge. That looked lame as heck, but we all know the camera has potential well beyond what was on display in that instance.

I would like to add that the Socality spot is unintentionally hilarious/sad to me. That production style, hirsutiness, and general level of narcissistic aestheticism is a parody of itself. Pretty youth preening towards the camera. It's such a common trope, if an enduring one. The irony being that this particular organization is all about faith community so you'd think they'd be a little less wrapped up in that nonsense. But nope. Looking pretty on camera is more important than doing the nitty gritty humanitarian stuff, apparently. Just reading the founder's bio is a slog of first-person navel gazing accented with an image involving a heap of styling gel. Just one of the silly things you can get away with when young I guess --while us old farts roll our eyes with bemused nostalgia. Alright, off my soap box...and I'll leave that tangent alone from now on. Sorry for the rant. Oh, btw, buy any camera. Whatever you get it'll be perfectly fine. You can do those types of grades with just about anything. If you're gonna crush the dynamic range like that, you should concentrate more on your post-production skills rather than the particulars of acquisition!

Responding to that from the creative perspective: As you probably know, cameras are not going to grab really awesome shots without skills and effort both in the field and in post. Expect that you're going to have to "struggle" to make successful motion picture images. Learning how to do what people like Ed and Andrew do to make their work superior to others is what it's all about. That's the craft. Again, it's not necessarily about the camera. Turning something on and pointing the lens is just how you start the day. That's not enough to get impressive work. And from the technical side: If you're worried about the NX1 and it's new h.265 codec that doesn't work well with editing apps, I'd suggest you shouldn't. All you have to do is transcode the footage to easily edit it in post. That's hardly the onerous step that some online tend to make it out as being. In other words, I wouldn't dismiss the NX1 for that reason. Also, you're getting a new computer to handle post production work, so you'll be fine. The NX1 is a great little 4K motion picture camera that requires footage to be transcoded. Not a big deal. I'd accept that without hesitation. But again, if you're anxious about over-investing in something, then just buy something older, used even. You'll get a very functional imaging device on the cheap and you can develop your skills, make some money, and then target your investment towards the particular needs you'll KNOW you require after a year or so.

You can wait forever for the next best thing. Buy a camera so you can do something tomorrow. You're not going to accomplish anything looking at spec sheets. Here's an example shot with the Panasonic GM1: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/694tsb6iwy5y6um/AABQqvadHmjdB8jqJDat5cVTa?dl=0 Is it the best IQ available? No. Do the GM1's IQ limitations get in the way of me telling an effective story? No. Is it pretty darn good with IQ anyway? Yes. DOF quality? Watch the interview shot I linked to and you tell me. Besides, most cinematographers prefer f5.6 on s35mm, so I think this FullFrame DOF argument is overplayed, but if you feel like you need it, that's your call. 4K? Eh, it's nice but not a deal breaker for me. I can shoot on 1080 and be content. I'd also point out that M43 can take a speed-booster adapter and work as an effective s35mm cam. Anyway, the thing is if you're shooting on a budget you have to make compromises...and I don't think the compromises these days are really that bad. This cheap stuff does quite well. My advice is to go get it and actually do some work.

FWIW, I will add this: imaging tech is going to get so advanced and so cheap that very soon everybody, and I do mean everybody, will have awesome IQ power with them at all times -- via smartphones and enthusiast cameras. http://www.43rumors.com/panasonic-aims-to-launch-new-8k-cameras-by-2020/ So, ultimately, I don't think you're going to be able to significantly outclass competition with just the camera you buy. I'd argue that this moment has kind of arrived already, but great IQ will continue to get more and more democratized. As this happens, what's going to matter more? How you work with a client, how you visualize your images, how you collaborate, how you successfully envision a project and deliver it, how you tell a story ... or, what camera you choose to do the job? Depending on what you do, only you can answer that, but I know what I'm trying to value and nurture.

​I think this is an unfortunate assumption. One that I see often on online forums. As you can read in my previous post, I feel it's what you do with the gear rather than the gear itself. People need to stop fretting about spec sheets and just use the stuff. I don't think folks are doing themselves any favors when they feel their potential success is tied directly to whatever gear they have. Yes, it's part of the equation and you need to take the considerations seriously. It's just not as important, IMHO, as many seemingly tend to believe. So many other factors (and most not technically related) are so more valuable to a successful production. I'll qualify this and say that this is from my experience as a corporate video shooter. Other's reality may be different.

From my perspective on the low-end corporate side of things: Any camera in the price range you're talking about will do everything you need it to do and it'll look fine. You're not going to be limited by the technology. You're really not. These days my assertion is that it's all about the skill level and creativity you bring to the shoot, not the consumer gear you buy... unless you decide to really go upmarket and invest 10K+ in gear that higher level clients feel more comfortable with. --which isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes clients like seeing a bunch of "real" gear around and they'll pay for that reassurance, even though a shooter does the same exact thing with an expensive camera as they do with an inexpensive one. I like to rent gear in these upscale circumstances as the cost gets passed onto the client anyway. All this depends on the clients you're trying to land. If you're doing weddings or low end stuff, I say ignore the expensive gear altogether. I do. As for the NX1, as long as you're willing to go through the transcoding step, (people that typically don't like this step are the ones that gripe about dealing with the new video codec) it really shouldn't be a problem. I personally don't mind transcoding to prores422 and do it for all my footage anyway regardless of the acquisition codec. And there's ALWAYS a new and better piece of gear just around the corner. I mean, I'd even be contrarian and suggest (if you're really trying to keep the budget tight) considering a GX7 ($450 used) or similar if you want great looking 1080 IQ for less. My advice is to stay one generation behind the "cutting edge" of equipment, buy stuff when it discounts (new or used) and concentrate your efforts on shooting and lighting. So, you know, before worrying so much about a such-and-such camera, I always recommend concentrating on lighting first. The best shooters understand how to paint with light; natural or artificial... and if you know what you're doing in this regard then you can make any camera look good. I'd say try not to get caught up in the Gear Acquisition Syndrome. Now, all that bloviating aside, if I was buying a new camera today and had money burning a hole in my pocket, I'd pick up a A7s simply because it allows some fun creative filming and flexibility with light. You can do more with less when it comes to lighting, and that's always a good thing. Bottom line: Whatever you get, use it as a creative tool, not a crutch. Don't worry if it does't do something as well as another piece of gear, just make it do what you want to the best of your ability.

​ ​I really appreciate criticism. As long as it comes from people I respect. If you're smart and do stuff that's worthwhile and that I'm impressed by, I'm going to listen to your opinion. So, if you're on forums like these being overtly critical, you really should share your work so the person that's being criticized has a way to judge if the criticism is valid. Knowing context is important. On the flip side, you can also discern context with simple clues. For example, if you're a criticizer that reads a description of my film, sees that it's described numerous times as an impressionistic film, proceeds to buy it on Amazon.com, and then spends three paragraphs ranting that it's impressionistic film not a plot driven narrative --well, I can dismiss that criticizer quite easily and not take the insults too personally. Discrimination is a much needed skill in creative endeavors. It extends to accepting negative feedback.

​I think it's great that you don't agree with a lot of viewpoints on here, express yourself as assertively as you do, but let the discussions unfold relatively openly. The free flow of thoughts positive and negative are okay by me. The particular PC attitude that seems to believe that everyone needs to be insulated from contrary or even distasteful opinion is some weird sentiment if you ask me. I'd rather be offended by a comment than bored by it. You know, I'd much prefer to let someone be insulting and stupid, imho, than ask them to shut up. Maybe it's just my respect for my country's first amendment right as guaranteed by our constitution... ironically, so many over here think that right protects them from regular citizens or private entities telling them their opinions are ridiculous. Anyway, it's great you let things happen. Censorship is easy to spot and never looks favorably on those that do it, for whatever purpose. If one's ideas and ideals are so weak that they can't withstand the slings and arrows of criticism, then those ideas and ideals are at issue, not the critique.

For your budget, as mentioned by Cinegain, "G7, with lens turbo" You can buy a cheap SMC f1.4 Pentax 50mm. It's usually less than $100 on eBay. Or, buy a f1.7 for $50. Both will go plenty shallow on the DOF and you'll get a lot of IQ from the 4k rez of the G7. From what I see, Panasonic are really the best bet for low-budget camera bodies with impressive specs that cater to the video side of things. The setup listed above is under $1K as you requested --and it'll give you lots of ways to burn money (but not a ton) afterwards by buying lots of old used glass. Your images will have so much more character than the sterile look of modern lenses. For motion picture/cinema I consider this a very good thing. You tastes may vary. For instance, I have a EM5II with the Oly 12mm-40mm f2.8. Very Pragmatic lens for run and gun corporate shooting, but it looks so pristine and clinical I never use it on my personal stuff. Honestly, I find that older glass is the best bet to take the edge off of digital video. That and a 0° shutter, but again... it's all individual preference.

Actually, ​I haven't read a single screenwriting book. I'm just not a fan of voice over. It's usually done poorly and I also don't like heavy handed exposition. However, I just watched Shawshank yesterday and I feel that's an exception.

​To be fair, Hexawe's music does force me into contemplating existential ennui.

​Why? Color grade and overall cinematography looks fine. In the future I'd suggest to not use high shutter rates as it creates an unnatural motion cadence. Motion blur is necessary for the image to look organic. Otherwise, what you have achieved is a very impressive accomplishment.

​Narration, like Voice Over? Ugh. I have an extreme prejudice for that conceit. I'll take my movies without that sort of exposition, thanks. But you're spot on about the title. Not even remotely sure how that works. The alien species takes "refuge" in humans? Or, it's ironic? The humans think they're finding a planet of refuge but it's really not? It looked like the space-travelers found a hiking trail in southern California to be honest, but I'll be forgiving as far as that goes. It's a no-budget short; can't begrudge the filmmakers too much when it comes to setting. (although they could have went to the San Diego East County badlands for an ideal alien planet setting)

​Even if that was the case, I'm okay with that. I can relate because I shot my last short on a GM1 and a 30 year old 25mm lens; because I wanted to experiment and see if it could be done while creating a nice cinematic look. Besides, this is a good proof-of-concept type film and it does exists whereas many people never do anything like this, so let's give it some credit where due. Yes, it's filled with some tropes and isn't the most sophisticated film you're gonna see... But heck, I'd be happy if my short films got any sort of attention, gimmicky or otherwise. This film deserves more eyeballs than the short I did, I can tell you that much.

Are you available for parties?