fuzzynormal

​Looks perfectly fine and accomplished to me. The director's subjective decision regarding color was on target as far as I was concerned. Creative use of compositions and lots of fun production value for an indy music vid. Good work.

Depends on what you want to do. I wouldn't recommend necessarily making a wildly dynamic food video "just because." If it fits what you want to do or are hired to do, sure... but there's something to be said in making a video that's a bit more timeless and classic too. I don't do extreme food cooking like I'm base jumping of El Capitan, so that commercial looks a bit silly to me personally.

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration. They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything. Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction. It's a soft target. That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically. If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.

​Quite a lot, depending on how you handle it. It's not going to make every-single type of shot better, but if you work within the 5-axis' strengths/limitations, it'll reward the effort. The main strength I've found is that it'll allow you to do some shots quicker and easier than you'd be able to do otherwise. This sort of cam is really good for run and gun music videos like you see here, corporate shoots where you're grabbing lots of documentary style b-roll, and things like weddings. It's a lot of fun, great for a lot of work, but not perfect for everything. The interesting thing I've discovered using it is that when you hit the limits of the stabilizer's capacity, you need to recognize how to pull back from those limits. Once you go over the 5-axis' abilities and start getting the jello-warping, that's no good. You need discipline not to over-do it. So, you know, when you see other footage from this camera shot by an unskilled enthusiast, these mistakes creep to the forefront and don't make the camera look good. But, if you're considered in what you do, it is pretty enjoyable to use. I suppose you could say that about any cam... I wouldn't discourage anyone for getting their hands on it and giving it a try. If it fits for what you want to do it might be the ideal tool.

​Eh, never bothered me much. You can get easier interview shots with a FF cam, sure, but otherwise it's a really great image for not a lot of $$.

I recommend it. I've shot a ton with it over the past year. Very valuable cam for me.

I think it's great to see the camera being used guerrilla style like that. Lots of fun and it's really a great tool for that sort of work. One of my production pet peeves though in full display here: Your actors gotta run full speed or it looks ridiculous, doesn't matter what camera you use. I see this mistake way too often. Hey, just ask Mr. Thomas Cruise, he'll tell ya.

So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life. Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter. 4 decades ago, great motion picture IQ wasn't a consumer possibility. 8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then. 3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's. That stuff is dated. It bears the mark of the 1980's. However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way. The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain. For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production. I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic. I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images. And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.' Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop? Anyway, that's all part of the mix too. This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution. I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp. Any thoughts? * talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.

​To hell with you guys. I'm going to shoot an entire film in real time, with 28 different scenes, and in one take --from the top of the empire state building. http://gearburn.com/2012/06/the-aware-2-worlds-smallest-and-fastest-gigapixel-camera/

​You know, I wonder... and this may be way off the mark, but is there any chance that this sort of skin-tone argument is actually flipped in Japan? I mean, maybe the Japanese prefer Sony's color science to Canon's? Anyone know anything about that possibility? Just curious.

​I tried my old EM5 with the Pany 150-300mm. Didn't like it. Weird results. In cam stabilization was enough.

Well, a Sony camera will have a bunch of different frame rates and motion picture settings (sometimes including good 'ol 60i). If some dude just turns on the camera, sets the kit lens to f8, runs everything in automatic, and starts shooting with these non-cinematic video-ish settings, then you're going to see what a Sony cam can do to NOT look like film, but that doesn't mean it can't do it. Which, in turn, means that the motion images bmpcc produces doesn't necessarily create better filmic results ultimately. It just creates them by default. But maybe that's what you meant? That an operator can't do anything with a bmpcc besides film-style imaging? So they can't screw it up, as it were? I mean, I like the BM cams, but just because Sony has more frame rate options and default frame rate settings that make their footage look like a laserdisc from 1979, let's not condemn it to inferiority.

​There's no singular answer. They're all good. It comes down to what kind of footage/style you're trying to get. If you can articulate that, then you can get some really good advice here. (Not from me though, but from other folks that seriously analyze the IQ stuff. I tend to believe it's how you use a camera, not the gear itself. This opinion of mine is in the minority so take what I say with a grain of salt.) At any rate, I tend to believe if you can't articulate in detail what you're trying to do, then the answer can seriously be: "get anything." This would be because you're not likely not going to be doing much considered or sophisticated shooting anyway. That being the case, just about any new camera will allow you to grab some pretty great shots. Except Fuji. Don't buy Fuji for video. Even that IQ is too lousy for me.

​FWIW, the EM5II is nice and all, but it's not going to give you the same functionality as a gimbal. I just use it for short shots kuz that's what I do most of the time. Short PR edits. But, if you wanted to do a looooong tracking shot following a character around and needed the camera to transition through some pretty aggressive moves and still keep things smooth, the internal 5-axis on-a-sensor isn't going to like that. I think you'd see some significant warping. You'd definitely want a more professional tool/gimbal in that case. Also, the EM5II is pretty decent IQ, but it's certainly inferior to a lot of other stuff on the <$1K market. Don't want to hijack the thread here, it's all just food for thought. Since it worked for me, maybe it would work for you. Depends. If you want to see a lot of words agonizing over the EM5II, this is where you should go:

There was a thread a few month back when the EM5II came out and I showed some Tiger footage I shot in Indonesia with an FF Equiv of 600+mm on the EM5. When I started using the 5-axis and realized I could quiet a 600mm focal length, it really got me excited for the tech. I'll see if I can find that. I think the great thing about this sort of camera is that it's just fun to use. The ability to grab easy static shots is what sold me on it --not even the simulated slider stuff one can accomplish, that's a bonus. I just needed to be able to hold a camera in weird places quickly, like over my head while standing on a chair ...and being able to do a shoot without sticks or setting up a huge (or small) gimbal is liberating. The camera is not for everyone or certain jobs, but it's been working well for me. Anyway, it's an alternative idea to buying a gimbal. You get a pretty kick-butt stills camera too, BTW. Just putting it out there. ​

​I kinda think the floating sensor 5-axis tech will be a standard thing in almost all consumer enthusiast cameras within a handful of years, and then continuously refined after that. We'll see how Sony does it next with their upcoming release. Anyway, I decided to buy this new cam instead of a gimbal; just knew it would fit my jobs more pragmatically --and for me it has. I've always been one to parse down my gear though. A lot of times when I show up on a shoot the folks tend to ask me "where's your stuff?" A small footprint is good for me, but other shooters like to (need to) make a statement when they're on set with their gear. Whatever works.

​Nah, I just do some Kesuke Miyagi' "kata" moves and the 5-axis stabilization in the EM5II smooths out the bumps. I literally gently sway my body while holding the cam or soft-feet-crouch-walk -- just like I would if using a glide cam or, I suppose, a Ronin. Doesn't take much practice to be honest.

​ FWIW, $900 bucks. Toolless and easy to set up. You just take it out the camera bag. ;-)

.

​It'll be curious to see what the price of that camera will be in a few years.

Here's some stabilized footage I shot a few days back for a goofy corporate gig. Might give you an idea how certain moves and some very basic shots can be enhanced with the technology:

​This is very true. You have to be discriminating to discern it, but that can also be very telling and informative; always lots of scuttlebutt comments that have bad footage=bad camera, however. (and yes I just used the word scuttlebutt)

I have looked at the SLR Magic stuff as well. It is nice. But, since a speed booster and old glass will be less than $200, I think I'll stay on that pathway (for now). However, maybe a few SLR Magic lens rentals in the near future would be worth the time and $$.

​Moreover, I'd like to know how McClane made it through that night on top of Nakatomi Plaza without bending the rules of physics a little bit. ;-) Funny perspective, Rich. Speaking of old fashioned, watch some classic films from eighty to a hundred years ago for a little "yippie-kay-yay." I'd recommend this one: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0019760/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 or some Keaton stuff ....before you lay down any more absolutes.

​I do entire shoots with 5-axis. I love it; works for me. I agree with your opinion that stabilization can look very artificial when the camera is moving. It's a tool on my EM5II that works very well for grabbing static shots without a tripod (which I do often) and for mimicking a short slider shot...but you have to practice at it, much like using a glide-cam type rig. For much of the corporate crap I do, I prefer a quiet lens. For those shoots I'm trying to keep what I do as neutral and transparent as possible. I don't want to call attention to my shooting and/or editing. I put their stories at the forefront and the production style is conservative. I also concur with your assertion, Implement the 5-axis technology in an intelligent pragmatic way and it's a wonderful thing. We all should keep in mind that a lot of shooters you see on the youtubes haven't a clue or are just messing around with testing, (5 minutes of walking though as park handheld? Who would use that in an edit anyway?) so judging by their work is a mistake. And let's be honest, a lot of prosumer enthusiasts can also be talent-limited, assuming that IS or OIS is some sort of panacea that'll make their footage wonderful. Um, no. If you stink as a shooter in general, your stabilized footage will do the same. (those Canadian guys from that camera store come to mind. They're gear geeks and can tell you the ins and outs of a camera's functionality, yes, but they're not the best shooters and the footage always looks subpar to what a particular camera can do.) Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too.