fuzzynormal

Oh my, one can be too old for this shit? I may be in trouble. I'd say the big thing would be to storyboard it.

You want a professional or prosumer camera? I used to shoot a ton with Canon's XH cams, and that line has evolved into Canon XF300. Although, the 300 is not 4k and the build of the camera does look a little high end. Still, I was always able to make my XH-A1 look pretty good on documentary shoots. I have stuff from years ago that easily rivals stuff I've done recently. Maybe Panasonic's HC-WX970 would be a good stealth cam? It looks very unassuming, as does the Sony AX-100. Not sure how you'd stretch things to a full day of recording, especially with 100Mps 4k shooting. Still, swapping a card would only break shooting for about 5-10 seconds...assuming you have a camera operator doing that. You could rig a external battery without too much trouble to run all day.

​Then again, an accomplished race car driver in a modest sedan could easily lap a kid in a Ferrari. It's not always what it does, but how you do it.

Well, there is improved light sensitivity too. Personally I'm not enamored with the FF extreme DOF look anymore, but it does offer advantages. The shallow DOF at f1.4 is pretty useful for interviews, but (IMHO) not for other shooting.

​So true. Which is why I don't tend to sweat it too much if I'm not using the latest and greatest imaging device.

​I'm on a selection committee for a film fest. Honestly, we see a lot more creativity from people working with a lot less. Point is, this film is lame. I'll agree with ya. Anyway, a good aspiring film maker will recognize that it's not the camera failing here. Of course, many aspiring film makers don't always know what the hell they're doing, so they could be swayed negatively with lousy films. I mean, "Reverie" wasn't exactly great narrative, but at least it used light in a good interesting way. Yvonne's cinematography is sterile and ... well, just bad. Samsung should've pulled the plug on this film and left it alone. --And putting it on YouTube with an open comment section? Whooo-weee....good luck with that.

Well, you should know that lots of other cameras have better quality than Canon or Nikon right out of the box. But, you should also know that a Canon ML (Magic Lantern) hack will give a Canon camera some of the best image quality on the market. You have to work a bit harder in post to deal with that footage, however, but it's probably the most affordable way to get some awesome motion picture imaging. Ultimately, I went with M43 gear, but it was't just because of IQ (which was pretty impressive from Panasonic).

Wow. Talented stuff on display there. Good editing. I appreciate your style and understanding that small can be a huge advantage. I shot a doc in November with a GX7 and GM1. No problems. Great images and very nondescript.

"I began to wonder if the ‘space race’ of camera technology may have lost sight of what actually makes a flattering picture." Yup. And it ultimately ain't really the camera, is it? What should happen when a filmmaker gets their hands on a camera where the spec sheet is more or less ideal? At some point it's got to be about what we do with the things. ...if anyone wants to buy me a A7R II though, let me know ;-)

I'm curious about that Bolex. What's your take?

Panasonic LUMIX G 42.5mm f/1.7 Aspherical Power O.I.S. Lens Micro Four Thirds I'm a M43 shooter most of time. For me, a 40mm-ish lens offers an ideal focal length for cinematic imaging. I find I like doing a lot of my shots at this focal length on M43. Often it's all I go out into the field with for certain gigs. I do this to keep my sessions aesthetically cohesive. I have an Oly 45mm 1.8. I might carry along my Pany 20mm for some wider stuff, but I'm just not as enamored with it as I am the 45. The documentary I'm currently working on is about 75% shot on my 45mm, and almost all those shots are making it into the edit. Zooms I don't really like. I use them for corporate work, never really for my own shooting. I like to recommend people shoot with only one lens for stuff. It's really great limiting your focal length options; forces you to think in a certain visual vocabulary. The last short I did was all with a 25mm 2.8. Primes are the best!

Well, here's her sentiment directly for reference:

​Yeah, that's pretty much what she had to say about it. And I also find it fascinating that even as the ability to afford one's "brush" gets cheaper and cheaper, it's always going to be a relevant part of the process. It's an art form that's more demanding of the craftwork than other mediums, I think. The simple nature of it being (mostly) collaborative produces an energy and momentum not seen in many other types of solitary art. --One of the reasons I find the collaborative are of dance and live music so captivating as well.

FWIW, here's some more insight from the filmmaker I quoted:

It would be so much easier to be a painter or a writer. You don't have to have equipment. You don't have to do all the things. You're not at the mercy of gear. You're not here and you're not there. It's a terrible pain to be a filmmaker, because you not only have the creative problems, but you have financial problems that they don't have. You have technical problems that they don't have. You have machines that are breaking down in a way that paintbrushes don't break down. It's just a terrible thing to be a filmmaker. And if you are a filmmaker, it's because there is something in the sheer medium that seems to be able to make some sort of statement that you particularly want to make, and which no other medium to you seems capable of making in the same way. Not my words, but I do like them. As much as I go on about it's only about what you do with the equipment, not what equipment you have, filmmakers are tethered to the technology. It's the blessing/curse. If you're curious about from where and whom the above sentiment comes from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8FvTjESvU

It would be so much easier to be a painter or a writer. You don't have to have equipment. You don't have to do all the things. You're not at the mercy of gear. You're not here and you're not there. It's a terrible pain to be a filmmaker, because you not only have the creative problems, but you have financial problems that they don't have. You have technical problems that they don't have. You have machines that are breaking down in a way that paintbrushes don't break down. It's just a terrible thing to be a filmmaker. And if you are a filmmaker, it's because there is something in the sheer medium that seems to be able to make some sort of statement that you particularly want to make, and which no other medium to you seems capable of making in the same way. Not my words, but I do like them. As much as I go on about it's only about what you do with the equipment, not what equipment you have, filmmakers are tethered to the technology. It's the blessing/curse. If you're curious about from where and whom the above sentiment comes from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sH8FvTjESvU

If you can't realize the profundity of cat videos, you're dead to me.​

​50p slowed to 25p as needed. And I agree. I also do the 30p to 24p thing every once in awhile for a subtle motion effect.

​ Western cultural tropes. It is exaggerated in our culture because of the legacy of, I think weirdly enough, the 19th century Victorian era. And since the 20th century saw the narrative rise of film, the industry really perpetuated that legacy. The popularity and industrialization of film kept those old tropes alive and nurtured. Actually, I think the 1920's almost broke free of it, (the most creative 20th century decade in the USA, for sure) but when film making became a massive business it needed to pander to the culture: rural conservative America...film as business vs. film as astute art, we all know which way the scales tip. But even more than all of that sort of theory, let's not deny that gender conflict is a part of humanity and does offer a lot of storytelling opportunities. Still, the prism of our culture will lead less insightful writers/directors down the path of the familiar. Those tropes CAN be exploited if a creative is savvy enough to manipulate them, but the less nuanced folks do tend to get easily caught up in 'em and when walking down that well worn path, can't see the forest for the trees.. (if I'm allowed to mix metaphors there.)

From a quarter of a million bucks to 6k... it's a, what, 8 year old camera? If it's now this cheap, might just rent it for some corporate clients that like to see the "big-stuff" on location. What's needed for audio? Thanks for the example.

Aw, c'mon, man. Did you ever see the movie Airplane? There's a difference between making a movie that's stupid and making a deliberately stupid movie. Its goofy satire. It's not supposed to be original if it's embracing the tropes it is mocking. Airplane was the identical plot and story of a 1960's film. They literally used the same script and wrote jokes on top of it. You know, being aggressively critical of something is easy. Ive noticed many people seem to believe it makes them look insightful. I disagree. That said, I don't disagree that King Fury misses the mark in a few places. Comedy is hard and for me the timing is a little bit off on a few gags -- I personally like more setup before punchlines, but that's just my personal taste against the impressive scope of the entire production. Its an indy film! A group of people outside "the system" made all that happen on their own and it rivals a studio product. That context is incredible. I liked it a lot for what it is and that it exists at all.

​In that case, here's the first project I shot with it. Didn't do the color grade, just the shoot/edit: https://vimeo.com/125415659 Also, I uploaded a home movie clip the 1st week I got the camera here: https://vimeo.com/122338262 For some reason vimeo failed to sync the audio correctly, but if you're analyzing video, no problem.. Anyway, there you go. For some stuff the EM52 is an ideal tool; not saying it's perfect, but it's allowing me to shoot some projects in a simple and easy fashion, so I'm liking it for what I demand of it.

I kind of feel it's a put up or shut up kind of thing. It's way too easy to be a critic of something deliberately stupid. I get it if you don't like it. It doesn't work for me on some levels, but if you claim to be an Indy filmmaker and rip this a part, then seeing the accomplishments of the one doing the ripping seems like a fair request. I mean, it's a labor of love sort of thing, so it deserves a bit of leeway, right?

The shots will warp short or long if you move the cam around too much aggressively. As I say, I mostly use it for static shots without a tripod. No complaints there. I guess I could upload a clip...the corporate stuff I do with it is pretty lame though; not exactly the product I like to share, y'know?

It is bad if you don't control the camera. You can't swing it around willy-nilly and expect it to behave. I'll testify, however, that if you respect its limitations it will reward you with very useful footage.