fuzzynormal

Unfortunately, some people really don't consider their voice, for whatever reasons. Immaturity, vice, avarice? Mindfulness can be difficult to attain.

Never underestimate the "It looks cool" aspect of amateur filmmaking. Style above substance is easy to do. After all, if you're making a "real" film does it typically involve a bunch of random urban shots with some music bed? No, but when you're making something to show off your camera or lenses that's good enough. And really, what are a majority of vimeo video creators doing other than playing around with their stuff? Not knocking it, that's what I do too. Also, a lot of folks (not me) use this DSLR/Mirrorless gear for weddings. Slowmo is a novelty that works well in that heightened romantic-reality scenario.

​Been through this ringer from both sides of the projector. A film festival that I helped get going 14 years ago would have qualified then as one of these "lonely" fests. But we had resources and ambition to make it somewhat special and now it's one of the most regionally acclaimed festivals with A-listers attending. Who knew? We didn't back then, we just had hope because we felt the attitude we had and the community it was in might work in a good way. Now I'm also working on another film fest (two years old now) and, indeed, it's the sort of thing where no one really likes the submissions. A lot of "not bad" sort of stuff, nothing exceptional. But, like before, we have a few good things to our advantage. Our screening are, and always will be, well attended. 100+ without fail. The community support is the best thing going for it. So, a decade down the road, who knows?

To be fair, some art strives to offend. And why should't it if that's the intent? On the other hand, some people make things from a perspective where a lot of ideological ignorance is presented --where the creator doesn't have the insight or self awareness to comprehend other opinions. In one case let's say you have an artist that understands the various nuances yet strives to say something from her/his POV in a focused way. In another you have someone that does not comprehend the other's views yet presents his/her POV with that empathetic blind spot. So as a person that has to reckon with those two pieces of work, which one deserves the be held in more value? If either? That sort of thing is in a way intangible and it all depends on the art and the artist, but personally I'd hold in higher esteem someone with the intelligence to understand what they're creating and appreciating the context of it. So if you make an expletive movie because you're just not smart or wise enough to NOT make an exploitive movie, I think I'd approach that material with a healthy dose of skepticism. That doesn't mean I'm getting my panties bunched because I'm offended by a certain ideology. It means I think something is shit because there's not much intelligence on display. Art is meant to be poked and prodded from all directions. If it can't withstand that scrutiny then maybe it deserves to be ridiculed. Some things are good, some aren't.

For me, the thing to keep in mind is that a tool can still be great for a task even though it might not be "better." I still use my 5DII because FF with a fast 50mm just looks good for interviews. I think that encouraging someone to consider the 5DII is good advice; depends on what they're doing, you know?

​Tangerine. Look, It's just my opinion that you're just being kinda snobbish about RED and canons cine gear. I get it. I just think it's kind of a quaint notion. Others will disagree. That's the reality of it and it's fine. As for the 5DII, I also use it for interviews. It's a great tool.

The problem with this particular case law is that even though Thicke was aping Gaye, and Thicke is a musical idiot in general, the verdict opens things too wide and the industry fallout could be incredible. Anyway, OT. Maybe Thicke should try a little SRPC track action.

​Yeah, that's a total joke and I can't imagine similar cases sustaining this precent. I mean, a juror on the Gaye case was asking if chords could be considered intellectual property! I dunno ignorant juror...let's go back a millennium and ask Guido of Arezzo what he was thinking... This happens often in U.S. courts. A jury of "peers" is anything but. In the U.S. the legal line (up 'til now) to not cross regarding melody in particular is that every 8th note needs to be different --and the Gaye case mucks that up a lot by broadening the considerations of intellectual "theft." Ultimately it's a money grab by the Gaye family and they won. Hooray for them, but they left a mess behind. And Clarkson will be fine. Having some directed antagonism seems to keep things loose with that show. My guess is that everyone involved in the production knows this quite well and they exploit those that don't understand the entertainment industry just to keep the conversation happening.

​Yes, by all means, stop playing with toys. At least buy gear that makes you appear like a professional behind the lens and next to the cool camera stuff because that's what the viewer will truly appreciate when they watch the final product. [rolls eyes] Never mind these option that give you professional level imaging for a few hundred bucks, just use gear that has brand prestige among industry people. Such as a RED. It's so great. And your favorite gritty movie was once shot with it. If you do otherwise, you're not going to be prestigious or taken seriously by other guys that appear professional next to cool camera stuff. Well, unless you actually capture a compelling story and create an emotional and memorable film...which depending on your circumstances, using a toy camera might give you the best chance of acquiring, but, hey, whatever. As long as you look good in your PR shot when you're pointing and standing next to a big camera with a huge matte box. And you'll never make money! As a documentarian that's probably going to be true no matter what gear you use. Anyway, the "you-must-use-this" snob attitude (and it is a legitimate snob attitude) about specific brands is ridiculous. Sure, some people in the "biz" embrace it, and maybe it even helps them in their certain industry circles, but it doesn't mean it's an attitude we all need to share or assume that outlook works for one's particular needs. If you have the skill and the story, you can shoot the damn thing on a smartphone. As a documentary film maker, if you start with thinking about the story you'll always be better off than starting by thinking about the gear. My opinion is that too many people get that backwards.

You gotta keep moving. Lots of mega corps started off as different businesses. Shell, for instance. Who knows what Canon will be renowned for if they're still around in a century.

I just shot a doc with a GM1 and a Gx7. Outboard audio isn't the greatest process, but aside from that the imaging looks great. I got better results from those Panasonic cams than I would have acquired from my 5DII...except for interviews. That FF interview look with a wide open 50 or 85mm is pretty sweet.

Kind of both. The poor aliasing and the exaggerated moiré that results from it just makes those video wide shots look bad. I'm not too concerned about the perceived resolution the EM5II delivers. That's good enough. As I've written, I do hope that Oly can improved the video out of the camera with firmware, (maybe using your suggestions) but no way can that happening be a realistic assumption. Meanwhile...killer stills cam.

​GM1, GX7, A600, GH6. Even Panasonic's GF series is worth consideration. If you want a better video camera for half the cost of the EM5II, it's pretty easy to do. For me and what I've discovered, here's the deal with the EM5II: You can't shoot far and wide "moving-the-lens" video with it. The moire just kills the image. It's that bad. Really. I mean, just jaw droppingly ridiculous. Like, how is this even possible in a 2015 camera? I don't even think the Nikon D90 was this bad. And that camera is, what, 7 years old? (man, how I wish some sort of firmware can minimize the EM5II moiré in the future...fool's hope though) Static while wide is acceptable, but the whole point of this camera for me is to lose the tripod. Here's the other deal with the EM5II: If you don't shoot far and wide you can get great video shots easily and fast with just hand held. Often, that's enough. I have a specific client that demands a certain style, luckily this camera fits that niche' perfectly. I can now do those jobs quicker with the EM5II. And, as a stills camera, this thing is ridiculously awesome and worth the price. The image quality mixed with some of the novelty imaging features it offers is a lot of fun. The ability to shoot handheld at a 10 or 5 shutter? With a fast wide on the camera such as the 12mm f2.0, it's just wonderful, creative, and enjoyable. And, since I also dabble in night photography, the composite mode and long exposure mode have been a pleasure in which to experiment. I'm 90% a motion pictures guy though, and...ugh, video is the issue that I consider most and why I keep writing about this stupid/great camera. It could have been "the one" to handle everything, but it ain't.

​I own the camera and disagree with that. It's decent enough and I can use it effectively to get easy shots because of the 5-axis, but cameras that sell for $500 from Panasonic and Sony are better than the video IQ from the Oly right now. And that's a whole 'other price class...lower. My EM5II is a great cam in my modest collection. It's there for certain work and performs great at it, but it's not the best tool if IQ is your premium.

Well, sorry to break a promise, but here it goes: Please look at those two sentences above and try to notice the contradiction. Yes. Yes.​ It's very good, not as accomplished as OLY 5-axis. It drifts more. ​Asking for a comparison while deliberately handicapping the comparison? I think you were upset at an earlier example of this in previous posts. ​Yes. But I would use the full stabilization feature set. Handheld at a FFeqiuv of over 600mm it is required. ​Okay. And for my work I think otherwise. You're right, I'm right. So, please take the last word if you'd like to respond. I have no intention of engaging beyond this.

​I understand that's what you're trying to say. I disagree. I think most here are indeed just that or trying to be. ​I don't know what to tell you. My experience tells me that this is just wrong. Oly's 5-axis stabilizer is the best it gets. This is why the video is such a let down. You don't hear too many people expressing serious disappointment about the video on a Fuji camera, for instance. There's a reason for that. A Fuji camera doesn't have a killer stabilization feature that we'd like to see paired with great video capability. I do make a living at this low-end video production and own or have used almost all of these systems that you mentioned. On the other hand, from your own admission, you're forming an opinion based on internet testimony and examples. As such all I can say is that your writings are based on a bit of self-professed ignorance. So comment what you will, but I'm not going to hold your opinion in the highest regard --and I suspect others here on EOSHD might share that outlook. The reason Oly's 5-axis stabilization is touted is because it's superior, that's why it matters. As they say, "if you haven't tried it, don't knock it." Look, I can tell you that the Sony A7s camera has such great low light capability that a single candle will illuminate an exposure of the grand canyon. Now, you've read that. It still doesn't make it a reality. I think we've gone full circle and round around enough. I promise I'll lay off responding to you now. FWIW, I have been entertained by your posts. Thanks for that.

​Believe it or not, I actually agree with you on most of what you say; not this though. It's my observation that the average consumer, for most goods and services, defaults to the lowest common denominator. I believe the average consumer is going to use what's easiest and most readily available. The enthusiast camera market isn't where they go for imaging. Nope, these days it's their phone. I think maybe you're projecting your opinion onto the broad market reality and it doesn't really fit. Maybe you meant average consumer in the enthusiast market? Also, I'd advise you reexamine exactly why this blog is here. When you claim "the vast majority of people reading this blog are not filmographers." Well, this blog was specifically built for "filmographers" or at least those aspiring to filmograph. Check out that logo in the upper left of the webpage. It actually has a subheading explains things rather succinctly. FYI, it's in this particular context that most of the opinions here are shared, so I'd say, here at least, you're coming at things sideways. Post your opinion on dpreview.com and I'd agree, but post it here? Not so much.

I think the problem will take care of itself. Broadcast outlets will segment. Some will be like helicopter parents where everything is PC because of public service issues or just ideological attitude. Maybe like Oprah's OWN network...or PBS...or the BBC. While others will be more free because they just don't care about that nor need to. More than anything I just view it as a changing of the guard in media. BBC is trying to put the genie back in the bottle, but the bottle doesn't exist anymore. They're still looking for it though. Ultimately, these days this notoriety is power. Awareness matters good or bad. The things that make this uproar spread so easily can also be readily exploited. And it often is. I mean, good gosh, we have to deal with Kardashians don't we? Good grief, as an example my iMac just auto corrected "Kardashian" Jesus Christ. Never mind any of what I just wrote, we're all screwed.

​I can testify to this. It's very true and not only disappointing, but probably unnecessary if the Oly engineers had a bit more experience with video. After all, Sony cleaned it up it's video with the A6000. Will Oly eventually learn to do the same in future models? Let's hope. If one's goal (in owning a stills camera that shoots video) is to have the best IQ possible, the EM5II shouldn't be a consideration. Nope. If you need a tool that offers a unique creative feature such as 5-axis, then think about it. Simple. Simple. Simple. Why that reality should bother people in any semi-serious way is just odd. Wedding videographers shooting close ups and medium shots of faces with shallow DOF? You really need to have a go with this camera; might be a godsend for your work. If, on the other hand, you want the bestest IQ from a consumer camera for creative/technical purposes (or, as seems to be the case often, bragging rights) then grab a different product. I personally don't see the need to have so much trepidation about something you're not even going to own. The fact that the sentiments above can be repeated ad nauseam and some will still continue to rail becomes a study in phycological behavior rather than an exchange about cameras. But, it's the internet. I understand. I pretty sure god invented it to distract us all from the impending apocalypse. He's magnanimous in that way. Heck, I'm culpable in this silliness. I'm here posting like mad because I'm blowing off steam while dealing with a difficult client --and this alleviates some of that stress. That's my excuse anyway.

​It is. The nice thing is that it has a bit (pardon the pun) more leeway if you want to grade the image in post. I've been shooting with picture settings turned down all the way and for certain stuff that I want to 'pop' I can add some sharpening and color.

​The blocking is gone from what I can tell; haven't pointed the camera at a bunch of leaves blowing the wind, but so far so good. I think the image caries decent detail, honestly. The camera is just not going to do you any favors with that moire. That's the rub.

​Indeed. As Andrew said in his review lo these many posts ago. Every once in awhile you bump up against the limit and it's unfortunate.

​​I think the frustration with this camera is that moire exists at all. Especially after a few years of nice camera technology from Sony and Panasonic. Running around shooting faces with a bit of DOF I don't think'll be a problem. As I said earlier. Know the limitations, work around 'em.

​All of it was shot AWB to see where the camera would decide to go with the color; also if it would drift --such as certain Sony cameras have tended to do. The color and exposure actually looked pretty good in the interior stuff until one of the parents decided to "help" my filming and turned on the overhead lights. You know how that goes. I'm not going to deny that the big problem with this camera is moire, but otherwise it's giving me decent stuff.