fuzzynormal

Maybe a good illustration of my point (even more than the examples wrote about earlier oin the OP) would be French New Wave; the ability to make a movie come into existence regardless of the limitations. (often, those limits are really a huge blessings too) But to each their own, y'know? And also let me say that you're not crazy to want a new camera. Having something new and shiny can be fun and productive. Anyway, my biz'ness shot a documentary at the end of the year with two little M43 cameras. After it was finished there was a recognition that we accomplished just as much, if not more, with those cams than with our FS700. So, for me, I began to re-analyze exactly what I was chasing in my film making process...and then went out and bought another camera for *some reason :-) *because I covet new cameras. hardly a rational reason, but the truth.

​Good time to ask then. If it is, how so? Because most stuff here is gear talk. I always thought EOSHD was mostly (not all) for people that were trying to do low-budget cinema with this new era of consumer cameras; so very tech-centric. I mean, I don't mind that, but threads about the artistic side of things don't seem to generate much discussion. Seems more about the technical craft. After all, talk about dynamic range and skin tones on some upcoming new camera and a 10 page thread is likely. Hey, if I'm wrong, no problem. Just curious to hear from the head honcho.

​Thanks. You too? FWIW, the title of my post is exaggerated rhetoric to kick start some navel gazing. So, if'n you took it literally, you ought not.

​Yeah. Seems like I'm always willingly getting into the tech talk. I wonder if it's procrastination, fear of artistic failure, or just a general place where I feel comfortable? Probably all of the above.

This is related to the film making tangent going on in the motion cadence thread. I like new cameras. I own way too many of them. But, I also like to remind myself that the camera doesn't really matter all that much. We can accomplish more by worrying about the storytelling craft rather than the technical craft. And I really enjoy the technical craft, but it's not expression. It's engineering. Sure there's certain creativity there, but I'm now trying to be more of the architect. (not succeeding yet, but trying) As indy film makers I believe too many of us strive for technical achievement at the expense of the other ingredients. This website is aimed squarely at jack-of-all-trade sorts of people, but ironically focuses it's editorial content mostly at gear. Not a bad thing, mind you, it is what it is for practical reasons. Still, many new film makers don’t need motion picture cameras at all. This is a cool evolution of the craft that is happening more and more as we move deeper into the digital era. Some directors are so creative and inventive all it takes is their imagination —and a lot of time locked away in their bedroom in front of a computer. Well, okay, the camera is a requirement for some of the work, but it’s not the priority. Has anyone been following the film making career of Don Hertzfeldt? His films are gems of emotional existential storytelling. Hardly any of his techniques rely on fancy camera gear. Rather, using lush soundscapes and crudely drawn stick figures the guy is able to make narratives that are completely engaging. It’s decidedly low-fi film production, but by no means does it lack in sophistication. Quite the opposite. On the other end of the spectrum are technical achievements such as Erik Wernquist’s “Wanderers” It’s a CGI masterpiece. By Hollywood standards it’s not CGI that’s an overwhelming violent spectacle, but it’s spectacular for so many other reasons. His images, familiar narration (a famous scientist), and storytelling prowess, combine to create awe and inspiration. Images used to create his short were mostly from NASA. With a large dose of patience at the seat of his 3D software he’s created an extremely memorable film. These are just two examples that I’ve been impressed with over the past few years, but many many more are out there. When it comes to films wherein the motion picture camera is not the primary tool what are some of your favorites? It's such an exciting era of film making!

Yeah, I agree with Sekhar. Might be a EVF display thing. I've done something similar on my Panasonic and Olympus cameras by tweaking the wrong setting(s).

​Have you been shooting into bright lights for the past few days without a hood or matte box? Could be lens flare.

Visual aesthetic. Fashion. That should be enough for explanation, right?

​I probably couldn't tell in between the brief moments when my eyes weren't rolling. I seem to recall Cameron recently bitching about not being able to pan fast enough with 24fps and something about jutter. He strikes me as a guy that loves delving into the tech side of film making and pushing those limits. Pretty much consider him cheesy in the storytelling department though.

​Yeah, same here. The place isn't perfect, thank goodness. BTW, on higher budget shoots, has this motion cadence thing ever come from the client, or it more a creative side of things?

What I think is the only way it can be. Me! Me! Look at me! I'm typing on the Internet! Validate my opinion. Validate me! Let me know the camera I own is awesome. Tell me I make great choices in the things I buy!! Wait, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion? :-) I actually like all frame rates depending on what I wanna do. Seems like mixed frame rates in the same film could be exploited as a narrative tool as well. ...and slow frame rates too. I once shot some stuff @15 0degree shutter for a cool effect.

Not the movies I've made. I shoot mostly available natural light. And you might want to ask Terrence Malick how he feels about your assertions. Still... One of my favorite films is Casablanca --so I do get your meaning.

Huh. I didn't think it worked. I thought it looked stupid. Maybe my opinion was influenced by how god awful, trite, and terrible the story was. Did I mention stupid? Regardless, in my subjective opinion hfr in that movie just looked ridiculous. Guess that's what it's ultimately about. Subjectivity.

​Hard Sci-Fi and Fantasy shouldn't even be written about in the same sentence. Those two genres have nothing in common! Sacrilege! May the reverse thrusters of a Heinlein rocket scorch you from the earth. Anyway, if high frame rate realism could be pulled off with a hard Sci-Fi story line, it might be an incredible achievement --insomuch that such a plausible future reality would then seem more real to an audience. My argument may seem a bit like a contradiction as the bar for the suspension of disbelief is indeed higher when using HFR (because the perceived reality of HFR is more like our own eyesight and invites the uncanny valley). However, even though getting over that bar would be a huge challenge, if successful would take the viewer that much deeper into the narrative.

I believe a production will come along soon wherein utilizing 48p (or higher) really jibes with the narrative and becomes a useful character of the story. For instance, using it with a particular near-future hard Sci-Fi film. Where maybe you would want the setting to be very realistic --to create a sense of practical possibility? I don't know. Seems like that might have potential. As an example, imagine if it was 1968 and you saw 2001 in the theatre @48p. That would be a pretty cool mind f*ck. However, since most of us are conditioned from experience to accept 24p, I really don't expect wholesale changes to happen with conventional films in our lifetime. I mean, I shoot my documentaries @24p; mostly because they've dealt with memory and nostalgia, so that sort of sentiment fits the surreality that imperfect 24p allows. I should also mention that I shoot 0º shutter @24p. That really does a number on motion edge blur in a way that I find appealing. It is very much visually false. But, for what I've been doing, it's allegorically true. ...Hmmm, makes me think that combining both in a certain narrative might be a cool experiment...

This camera, I don't like it. But I don't mind Canon selling it. Seems like some are mildly insulted it even exists. I believe this model is a Canon strategy to fill a market gap that we'd rather their EOS line handle. If you view their strategy as cynical, frustrating, smart, or understandable that's up to you. My impression is that they're crazy like a fox. While none of their recent moves make much sense to our niche market it will ultimately better serve their position in the future landscape. I also suspect that they don't care too much about a few individual consumer/enthusiast level bloggers poo-poo'ing the camera. The prosumer buyer has a different standard that's somewhat immune to internet ramblings. They buy for specific needs that don't necessarily involve making the most cinematic image on the cheapest camera body --for better or worse depending on your POV. Make no mistake. We're a niche market. (I also believe we're an undervalued niche market; not because of sales, but perceptive prestige among mass market consumers -- a theory for a different thread) Ultimately, consumer enthusiast cameras sales are trending down as more and more people get by making stills with their other devices. They have to shift to adapt to that reality and this is the way they're gonna try and handle it to stay profitable: targeted product development. They obviously don't like the EOS/Cinema cross over and are segregating those markets. And as much as that strategy bugs us, I suspect it's going to work for them. If Canon's offerings bother you, look elsewhere. There's still plenty of nice options. Just because they made the 5DII doesn't mean you have to keep buying from the company that sold it. Brand loyalty is sort of ridiculous in our particular arena at this point in time. Bottom line: They're a business making a business decision. If you want a camera company that shares your cinema passion and wants to offer you cheap solutions to do so, you gotta think about looking elsewhere. And, really, there's a lot out there. It's an embarrassment of riches, really. The market is saturated with options.

So you transcode. Not really a big deal if you ask me.

Yes, I'm stating the obvious as ironic rhetoric. mtheory is not wrong, but I don't agree that what he's complaining about is new. Hollywood has always been an industry full of bad ideas, spectacle, franchises, and trends. I don't think they're doing anything better or worse than they've always done, it just seems a bit different when you're passing through it because it's all more immediate. We notice the stuff that otherwise gets curated by time. The reason we tend to not remember that most of the movies throughout Hollywood history are nonsense crap is because the lousy movies are rightfully forgotten. I do agree that Hollywood is currently more aggressively pandering to kids (and adults that refuse to grow up) with merchandising franchises because that's where the safest money is at, but interesting movies with interesting ideas still do get made. With any luck they're good enough to be remembered affectionately in the future. Also, if you're going to fight intelligent genetically modified super dinosaurs with intelligent genetically modified super dinosaurs as your sidekicks, I think it's cool that it's done on a retro Triumph scrambler. Points for style.

​A giant ape falls in love with a bad actress, kills dinosaurs, travels to the big city, kills people, and then is shot to death on the top of a skyscraper. Crazy stuff's been around for awhile now. As for the Jurassic poster and the narrative in that particular film, without seeing the movie, who's to say is beyond the border of the suspension of disbelief? Perhaps Vraptors are shown to be of equal intelligence as humanity and they're working as allies not as tamed animals. The plot can be as absurd as anything, but if that narrative is handled well by competent storytellers and allows the viewer to buy into it ...it's all viable.

Anyone that thinks they know what I want or should have for my work without knowing anything about me makes me skeptical of that person's opinion. You're not me. I'm not you. My advice is to try and have a little empathy. Attempt to see things from a POV that's not your own. That's a healthy thing to do in life. Avoid being intellectually calcified. Regardless, wasn't the Bolex was always meant to be niche? If anything, they might be ahead of the curve as I think the future of digital video is going to move into specialized gear and less mass market...as the most likely scenario is that the mass consumer market is going to continue to dwindle for cameras.

​Never was. That's always been the point of the place.

Awesome, thanks for that. Although, I must admit, I've seen DSLR's rigged up bigger than that film gear!

Thanks. I'm getting close to doing the online for my documentary. I'll dabble with your settings and see how they play.

​Good notes overall. For what it's worth, you're not "supposed to" use variable ND if you want the most pristine image. Variable ND is going to refract light a little bit. A better solution is a single ND filter. I'm with you on the willingness to accept Chinese product in this arena. Why not give them a try? If they're actually dedicated engineers building the thing and they have a tight QC, seems viable. After all, I feel like my iPhone is a solid product.

​You're right. And that's my point. That achieving great technical IQ with contemporary tools is easy. So easy that a beginner with a good eye is going to capture competent if not outstanding images. In fact, their fresh naive outlook might be a huge value. They might do things in a new way simply because they don't know any better. Of course what you do or capture in front of the camera is the utmost importance. So much more than what specific camera you happen to use. Can you see light and paint with it? Do you frame well? Etc. That's why learning how to exploit the tool as a true film maker (rather than relying on the tool itself to elevate one's service to a client) is what ultimately matters (to me) for a rewarding career. Otherwise, I feel like I'm just being a technician. And, like I said, being a technician when everyone has access to the tech isn't going to get you far.