fuzzynormal

​Yes. Moreover, I'm going to wager that legacy digital accessories are going to be a heck of a lot easier to acquire in the 22nd century than a 35mm projector. I'm confident both will still exist, actually, just easier to get simple digital devices than a Westar. And, for what it's worth, I still have floppy discs from my C64 right now (anyone want to play Space Taxi?) I even have old data tapes from my 80's computers. At any rate, if someone makes a major motion picture and they're willing to archive an actual film print, by all means do it! But that's stuff I think only studios are going to consider. I guess Indy people can too, but they better have some deep pockets.

I like film as much as the next guy, but the argument that's it's awesome because it's the only viable archive format is a bit odd. The assumption in the argument tends to be "hard drives fail!" Well, okay. But why talk about hard drives? Solid state devices as storage is perfectly acceptable. Back up your project, stick it on the shelf, and in the year 2134 let your great great grandkids take a look at that awesome dynamic range test movie of SeaSide Heights shot on your A7s with a music soundtrack from Tulleycraft... Line the SSD with lead and seal it in a vacuum if you really want it to endure.

Ancient Greeks had a mind exercise that involved infinite numbers and division. They reckoned that since numbers are infinite that any time between two actual moments must therefore be infinite. Transfinite infinity. Zeno's Paradox. A trillion moments within a second? That's getting close. I like that notion. Time is not just how we perceive it. Excuse me while I go eat some pot brownies now, dude.

​True, but I'd argue this is achieved more in production design than cameras...I mean, I could make film look like video with a few tricks. Such an assertion seems to be a contrarian opinion. Many of us want to believe that the elusive film-look is solved with the purchase of something new and better. Perhaps to a certain extent, but I'm not convinced it's the beginning and end. ...and I'm a guy that LOVES actual film shooting. Go figure.

​Indeed, but what about the manual focus? I know it has some sort of manual "clutch" but am unsure what that means in actual practice.

BTW, that wide zoom (25mm-ish FF equivalent) to the long end of standard (70mm-ish) is sort of a necessity. She's used to working in that range, finds it comfortable, and utilizes the practicality of it.

​Leaning towards Olympus, so lenses with stabilization are not required if we do that...

I usually shoot with primes, but my wife does lots of corporate run and gun filming. We're transitioning this year to a full on m43 commitment and unloading our Canon DSLR stuff --and we'd like to get something similar in performance to her favorite piece of glass, the Canon - EF 24-70mm f/2.8. So, I'm figuring some sort of lens that I can mount with a "dumb" speedbooster on M43. As such, it'll need an iris ring. I guess a wide zoom in the range of 17-35mm would be comparable... Just wondering if anyone has experience or suggestions of a lens that's in the ballpark of those specs?

​Casablanca.

I think it's great. Interesting how younger people romance film as something so incredibly exotic. The step by step mundane nature of film development is treated as if it's some magical alchemy. Funny. I never thought I'd see a video wherein film processing is celebrated so much. Nothing wrong with any of that, it's just amusing as an older guy to see that fresh perspective.

​That's interesting and I'm not knocking your opinion, but for some reason I'm compelled to think the opposite. I like awesome considerate shots on limited technology for some reason. Something flawed feels more real to me, somehow. Must be my inflated infatuation of French New Wave.

​Perhaps, but when it comes to cameras and many of the hobbyist/enthusiasts that use them, gear acquisition is always going to be more important than creating. I don't think that sentiment is anything new; been around for more than a century. And those are the people most likely to fret about the latest and greatest and, in turn, help fulfill advertising. And advertising is important on these sorts of websites. After all, if you like really playing with tech stuff and you know you're not as good as other people making creative things (I'm figuratively looking in the mirror while typing this, btw) what else do you have to hang your hat on? Ownership is then what tends to matter more. For what it's worth, I've also run into pros that dismiss more than capable cameras as "toys" simply because they're not in the upper tier of equipment.

​​Based on what I see on Vimeo and in comment sections the answer is "random hand held street scenes with a music bed"

Here's a broader question that a really-good-but-not-absolutely-perfect-camera, especially like the NX1, brings to my mind often: Would these perceived limitations seriously affect one's ability to create compelling motion picture storytelling? At what point do we say, "man, that image is good. I can go make a movie with that." In other words, I understand the desire to reach for the elusive last % of IQ, but if you feel a camera satisfies 95% of your needs, but you'd REALLY like to get to 97%, do you NOT do something because you can't have it? After all, this is the low-budget ideal of film making here on this site. Since that's the model the cameras talked about here are always going to be behind the curve compared to upper echelon equipment. Is it a chicken/egg sort of thing? I feel if one has a great idea for a film, they'll go get a camera that makes it happen. Do some feel they need a great camera to realize their film ideas?

​Yeah, I'm hyperbolic. Sorry bout that. I mean I intellectually get why it makes sense for a lot of folks. It certainly depends on what they're trying to do. I just don't run in that arena of higher levels of production. And I've never met a camera I've been unable to effectively utilize because of bad colors. Well, that's not true. I've used some pretty wonky JVC cameras. As for the RED1, there's still a reason it appeals to dudes like Mr. Davis and why they use 'em to make cool stories... But man is it slow!

​I'm still a bit flummoxed why highly accurate skin tone is such a priority for some people. Personally I view color as a variable that can and should be exaggerated. To each their own I guess.

​I still have a bunch of footage from 10 years ago that I shot when I was there. Glad you were able to get in under the wire, as it were.

​Kind of depends on the level in which you work. The more pro things get the more i's and t's demand attention. I've been asked for it when renting studio space, but that's about the only time I've ever run into being actively requested to show proof of having it. BTW, if you own property it's pretty simple and cheap to get General Liability attached as part of your home owner's coverage.

​I think maybe you need a more active imagination. This capability has existed for years now.

​It is amazing how wonderful the chemical process handles this. I'm sure in a handful of years we'll all be arguing which camera's new fangled quantum organic flux capacitor digital sensor handles highlights in a way superior to film, but at the moment silver halide crystals still kick butt. Now, is it WORTH the extra hassle and expense for creamier highlight roll off...? Debatable.

​No doubt. But like any obstructions, actual ones are harder to overcome than the virtual ones. You always have that safety net of knowing you can ignore a self-imposed constraint. If you're on a diet, you tend not to put a box of doughnuts on your dining room table after all. Discipline to not to break the easily avoided virtual obstruction is great --if you can control that discipline! Most of us would reach for the doughnut when things get difficult. Then again, if there's no way to avoid an obstruction you're forced unconditionally to figure out a way around it. For sure I'm getting esoteric now! Philosophical reductionist navel gazing. But I do believe all this digital production is a double edged sword. Weirdly, the ease of digital production can potentially diminish the quality of a film. If for no other reason than it requires less production effort to attain similar IQ and less concentration/skill from the crew. (normally - most of the time - that's freakin' awesome, actually; more for less) Surely making things harder to do would seem counter intuitive, but depending on one's creative desires... well, it just might not be. I haven't shot a production on film for at least 3 years, but my colleague and I are doing s16 for a new documentary with various mixed media. Why? For all of the reasons listed in this thread.

Zero benefit of film? Not sure I buy that. Just the way moving images are captured of film is unique and worthwhile for certain things. And let's be honest, you can't beat highlight roll off in film. Light is captured in an analog process. Just the flawed nature of that particular process is important. Tiny flicks of particulate on the image, the imperceptible shift of the film spooling through the gate. Even when minimized as much as technically possible it does matters and is quantifiable. After all, we ourselves experience light in a flawed biologically analog way, don't we? Oh man, I feel like a Silver Lake hipster demanding that vinyl is superior to digital! I should be having this conversation while wearing an ironic beard and waiting in line for a $15 coffee at Inteligentsia. Anyway... Analog film does look awesome, and not even in a conscious way. Even for an ignorant viewer I believe this quality appeals on a fundamental, subconscious, and basic level. I don't think I'm being terribly esoteric when I say it's a "gut level" reaction to the images. I mean, I still shoot film stills for a reason. And it's not because it's practical. So this isn't a great analogy, but it's sort of akin to walking into a room full of tungsten light and one lit by fluorescence. There's a comfort level from experiencing light from a familiar source. Tungsten filaments burn very similar to carbon. Fluorescent illumination by exciting chemical compounds that include magnesium and calcium? Hmm, not so much. Ultimately, is shooting on film a huge factor when it comes to IQ? Honestly, I agree with the owner of this website, I personally would't put it up there on the priority list, but I shoot in the no/low budget range of motion picture production. For those artists that are attempting to capture some of film's particular quality, are looking to elevate their storytelling by every means possible, and money isn't really a limiting factor, why not? Indeed, exploit that opportunity. I wouldn't bother doing it, but I understand why someone would make the effort to do so. And, as mentioned in earlier posts, the work flow of film shooting creates a different on set atmosphere. This environment might be a good decision for certain productions.

The EW100 kit is good, but hardly indestructible. I've gone through 2 of the lav mics over the years. They are sensitive to damage and if you're really beating on them don't expect them to survive. That said, the transmitter and receiver have been fine.

Granted, it's pretty much "no-budget," aside from the sweat equity of everyone involved. I suppose if all of us got paid a fair rate for the hours we're going to put into it, then it would probably cost out over 10K. But, it'll be a short film made by a handful of low-end industry people on their own time and dime. It's not our first time trying this nonsense. The cool thing is, these days, as long as you got talented people committed to such a thing, it doesn't have to have a real budget to look like it might have.

​It's actually a GM1, and I have shot a short film on it using a A110 25mm lens. I was pleased with the results. Still, I'd like to experiment with something new and different. The idea of shooting with an iPhone interests me because of the challenge. But I do like the suggestion of a low-light camera such as the A7s. And, as a wild card, maybe do the whole thing hand-held with an Olympus camera... Not sure, but I'll make up my mind soon.