fuzzynormal

I hate video village. When the client demands it... blech. You just know you're in for a slow day.

​"Boum chicka waa waa" But no. Nothing sexy about it, really. Just working with colleagues on our free time to realize a short script we wrote.

​Oh yeah; always do. I'm more concerned about that than the camera...as you can probably deduce from my posts. I like to shoot primes though. Two would be fine.

BTW, the price of the camera doesn't fit into the budget of the film. If/when I buy this camera for this particular use it's going to be used for many other things as well. My main thing outside of this potential short is making documentaries, so that's a factor. For me, I do appreciate the suggestion of the Sony A7s; might be the best bet so I can exploit light in more flexible ways. Doing shots with practical lights on a low-budget film would be a very pragmatic choice, I think. Also, the idea of shooting handheld with Oly's 5-axis system is exciting. The Digital Bolex is also a player in all this. Of course, no wrong or right answers here. I've never been enamored with super pristine images, so that affects my choices too and opens up many more possibilities. Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if you're a good collaborative creative filmmaker, you can make something decent with whatever gear; the camera matters, but not in such of a big way as some tend to think. It's just a delivery system to tell the story. The mailman is part of the process getting a new hardcover novel to the reader, but he's not the author, know what I mean? Well, maybe in that metaphor a camera is the copy editor...fact checker? I dunno, fill in the blanks.

​There's definitely a different vibe on set when things are being shot on film. That can be exploited by directors/producers that are canny, excuse the pun.

​1. Me. Maybe an iPhone simply because it's quirky and because I actually like limitations of equipment; forces one to be creative. 2. $10. No. All of it. 3. Romance

Yeah, I'm thinking of doing another short soon. Because of the subject and story, shooting on a "lo-fi" camera might be a good idea. I'm more interested in the emotion of the images rather than the technical achievement of them. That's fine for some stuff, but not really what I'm aiming for on my next go-round. Although, the thought of being able to be production flexible with a low light camera seems very practical. Shooting available with a discriminating eye could be fun.

Personally, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, but welcome anyone else's outlook on their ideal. Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3824458/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Just know that lenses have a focal length measurement (millimeters) and it doesn't matter what camera you try to attach it to, that number is what it is. the distance between the center of a lens or curved mirror and its focus.No reputable lens manufacturer is going to put inaccurate "equivalency" numbers on their lenses. They're going to put down the number that represent the actual physical measurements. The no reason to do it any other way It's kinda odd how any notion otherwise got stuck in your brain, but I know for someone starting all this imaging stuff and jargon, it can be discombobulating. FWIW, I've been shooting motion images and still for decades with cameras of all "sensor" sizes. 8mm up to 4x5. This FOV stuff is so second nature to me now that I just kinda visualize the FOV in my head based on the glass-mm/camera-format-size and carry on.

Not sure what the confusion is. mm's is mm's. What camera you put a 24mm on matters for FOV, but mm is a measurement. millimeter. People that use s35 sensors/filmstock don't have a different metric system than someone shooting with a full frame, 4x5" film, or a m43 sensor. Forget the cameras anyway. That's actually irrelevant. You're talking about a lens. On your glass it's the distance from the point where light rays converge to the point where they form a sharp image onto the focal plane. 50mm is 1 millimeters plus 49 other millimeters. If you're arguing otherwise you've been misinformed. The idea that film shooters have special math that is unique for them is ... well, not right. This issue really gets convoluted because folks new to all this stuff (and even some pro's apparently) tend to overthink it and conflate various camera terminology. But if you just consider the lens, ultimately it's pretty simple. Which is why, if I was shooting a low budget action film with an ASP-C sensor, I'd tend towards the 40mm lens, as it would be a nice "standard" FOV. Not too wide, not too tight. But nothing wrong with a lens with a bit longer FOV either, you just adapt to what you got and go. I wouldn't burn time worrying about 10mm. I'd worry more about other aspects of film making. Actor and camera blocking, sets, design, stunts, lighting, acting, EDITING. Holy crap, that's the stuff that matters more. Try not to get wrapped up in gear-centric-fetishism on the low end of film making. If all that other stuff is half-assed I don't care what FOV you have, whatever film you're trying to make is going to suck. Make the most of what you have and be creative around your limitations.

​I've used a similar feature on the LUMIX cameras. Not terribly impressed. Screws up the image too much. Anything in motion has an obvious effect to it. Your mileage may vary.

​"These are not the cameras for video you're looking for." "These are not the cameras for video we're looking for."

With so many other great options on the market for cheap video, does it really matter what Canon decides to do with their 5D model if it's inferior on the video side? I've been shooting on DSLR Canons for years now and I'm not really going to worry if in 2015 they decide to not be competitive with video anymore. I know lots of people fret about skin tone, so maybe with a Canon camera there's that subjective superiority (debatable, IMHO) and then what exactly? The RAW hacks? (not debatable, that's pretty cool) Lens investment? Brand loyalty? I'm not scared to move away from Canon if they move away from me. I'm niche market and I get that. They're not exactly selling to me. I wish they would. But if wishes were horses... Sure, I guess I'd like an excuse to consider buying a Canon for video. Without a really good one though I'll just look elsewhere. I suppose we'll wait and see what they do.

I like to let the director do what he/she wants and enjoy it. Maybe Gone Girl was yellow to portray the protagonists cowardly ways...? I personally don't agree with the notion that colors need to be accurate.

​Isn't the 600D an ASP-C sensor, essentially the same size as s35 motion picture film? A 32mm lens is a 32mm in this context. It's not the crop factor, camera bodies, or lenses alone that determines "cinematic look." I understand why this notion persists, but people starting out should recognize that there's no simple solution to achieving such an aesthetic. The difference in 10mm focal length and 2 f-stops isn't going to determine the cinematic look of your film. Personally, and only just regarding the technical side of things, I feel that motion blur, frame rate, and skillful lighting are the bigger factors of the cinematic look...but one man's opinion...others will go on and on about skin tones and dynamic range as if the foundation of the industry is wholly reliant on those notions. But please don't let me dissuade anyone from pursuing gear purchases on a gear-centric site to solve a problem ... that gear alone cannot solve ;-) My lecturing aside, if I had to make an action film with one of those lenses I'd choose the 40mm and shoot @f2.8 at 24fps and a 50 shutter speed. Lock that in and don't change it. I'd control exposure with ND filters, lighting, and ISO. Above all, have fun.

Noted.

Just talk tech on your forum. Got it. It is what it is. No problem.

Why's that? Off topic? Look, y'all can moderate your site anyway you see fit, but here's my defense: The original poster is asking about what it takes to make "filmic" images and what's a good camera to do it. I say it's not that simple. What's the big deal? I know this is a tech-centric website, but since film making is an art created by the craft of technology, is it unhelpful to encourage people to explore other aspects of the craft, such as "painting with light," rather than the technology? After all, knowing how to naturalistically use light in a shot is going to be many more factors of importance than the camera body it's shot with. It's also hard to do. You do it wrong and whatever camera you use will not look great. How's that opinion "unhelpful?" So many new creatives are entering this world of film making through DSLR and mirror less, and I've unfortunately known a few people that believe solving the film-look issue is possible with one simple purchase of a camera body. I just disagree with that notion. Is that truly unhelpful or do you just not like reading my opinion? If it's the latter, just say so and I'll skidaddle.

​Indeed. And after all, if you really wanted to, you can make footage from an actual film camera look like video with a few tricks. And you can go the other direction with an electronic camera. If getting the closest right out of the cam is the biggest issue though, then it seems to me the BM cameras offer that. I still stick by my point though. If you apply skill to your shooting and post that's how you make digital look like film. The camera body is a factor, but a much smaller one than a lot of people tend to think it is. Of course, learning applied craft is harder than buying stuff, so... Round and round.

Yeah, I've been putting off uploading the thing, but I'll place it online and add a link. Ultimately I'm of the opinion that naturalistic lighting matters a lot --and how you take advantage of that light with your selection of lenses. In my short film, the idea was that most of the movie shots are memories from the "unreliable narrators" so the images are deliberately pushed pretty hard to not look realistic. Colors are exaggerated and stylized. All decisions that add to the "filmic" look. But the camera body? Kind of the least of the worries to consider, IMHO. Just about any camera made in the past few years will do the job.

My biggest peeve with this sort of question (and it's a legitimate question, I'm not bashing the OP) is the phrase "filmic." You can make just about any camera look "videoish" or look "filmic." It's not really the camera that does it. You see my little user icon there? It's a GM1 with a old Pentax a110 25mm lens on it. I shot a short film on it. In a film festival in which it was screened a lot of the positive comments were how the short looked very "filmic" compared to other entires. I did a pretty aggressive color grade too. (considering how flimsy the narrative was, the aesthetics were the only positive reviews I got!) The other cameras used in the same screening block were the Canon 1Dc, a RED, and a FS100. All great cameras. Point is, it's what you do with your camera and how you apply your knowledge, skills, and craft (aka: how it's lit) that ultimately makes the difference. You can't just buy a piece of gear and think "okay, that tick box is checked, my stuff will look like a movie now." That said, BM. Best dynamic range. DOF is over rated and over used nowadays.

And here we go again.

I'd also like to hear any testimony regarding editing on Resolve. If anyone has more stories to share, that would be great.

​Of course, the other thing to keep in mind: 35mm motion picture film has a smaller exposure area than a "full frame" 35mm still camera. Closer to an ASP-C sensor.

​It's ungraded footage from the Panasonic Gx7. Their "Standard" color setting with color and contrast tuned all the way down (-5). It's the Olympus 45mm m43 lens on the interview. I think the footage looks good because that particular room had a decent mix of soft ambient daylight, some non-harsh fluorescent adding some nice fill, and it all falls off into darkness deeper in the background, giving subjects in the middle of the room nice contrast separation from the background. All I did for the interview shot at this location was add some mild backlight. Even though I like my gx7, I'd give more credit to the lighting available at that location than the gear!