fuzzynormal

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!

Deja Vu all over again. If you've ever been an indy musician all this kinda stuff gets wearily familiar. Expect it for "filmmakers" too. Lots of young people on the market struggling for a PR advantage and there will always be places like this attempting to monetize on it. Digital democracy: double edged sword. This Vimeo channel might be directed by a bunch of young earnest types, and could evolve into something useful, but I've earned enough wisdom to start with skepticism on this sort of offer. And here's a tip: If your PR video features a VO by a guy that can't enunciate and sounds like it's recorded on an iPhone, I'll take that as a clue that it's not exactly a professional service. I could be wrong. If so, good luck.

​No. All separate channels, eight in total. Yikes, it would be worthless otherwise. http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=180477

The reason why there's not a lot of info on how to get good footage straight from the camera is because lighting is always variable from shot to shot. You could set up something ideal for a building in 9 am sunlight that would look terrible @1pm. The shadows shift, there's more blacks in one shot, less in another. When you shoot with post grading in mind you source your stuff kind of generically --knowing you have flexibility afterwards. Ultimately, the most viable solution for you is to find some sort of personally-created balance on the shots to find an acceptable compromise. That's totally subjective on you, so it's difficult finding that sort of answer online. I've done this on my Lumix using STD and then dialing in my contrast and color to what I think looks best for my subject matter. The good news is that you have 3 Custom settings you can create. Using this you can make color options for 3 different scenarios you typically encounter and dial in the best color/contrast for each. i.e.: Morning C1, Afternoon C2, DeepShadows C3, whatever...

Here's the Azden SGM2x on location from a b-roll excerpt. You can see my co-director in the upper left of the screen holding the shotgun about 3.5 feet from the guy at which she points the mic, and the pickup the mic gets from the woman in which she does NOT aim the shotgun. The mic was plugged directly into a Zoom H1. The audio compression of these clips I made is probably too high, but this should give you a hint at real-world performance: http://www.path88files.com/Mieko/TESTS/Chikori-San_Printer1_bRoll.mp4 Also, here's that ew100 lav wireless in action with the H1. Personally, I can't imagine a shooter not wanting some sort of wireless mic system! http://www.path88files.com/Mieko/TESTS/Chikori-San_Printer_1.mp4

A long time ago I did a video for my brother, following a rock band on the road and used a Zoom R16 to record their gigs onstage. Worked great. 4 mics on the drums (kick, snare, overheads), 2 on gtrs, 2 on VOX. Here's exerpts: http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=190652 | http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=196703 | http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=189632 | We had a pretty talented guy on the audio desk in post with some killer skills and mixing components, but he was able to do a lot because we captured a decent foundation of sound. The flexible thing about this gear is that we could set it up ourselves without getting in the way of the venue's PA guy. We just split the vox lines and did the other mics ourselves during setup, about a 7 minute process. No computers, thing runs on batteries, uses cheap SD cards. It doesn't offer the best sound pre-amp-wise, but it's so simple to use that it fit very well for our needs. For one local gig we also used a Mackie 1620i with an Apple laptop. (the 1620i is pretty cheap used) Much smoother preamps. That thing's audio was sweet, offered a ton of mic'ing flexibility, and had such a clean sound, much more than the R16... but certainly more high maintenance than the Zoom.

I know you don't want to do it, but the best audio solution would be a wireless lav. I don't think you'd be able to grab better audio with a shotgun in a big room. You can use a shotgun such as the MKH-416, but unless it's close to the subject it's not going to sound all that great. Cutting corners on getting good audio would be a mistake IMHO. For what it's worth, I've used the Sennheiser ew100 without any problems for a few years. Good luck regardless!

​On a mic stand? Boom? If you need to get an innocuous mic into a wedding ceremony, shouldn't it be a wireless lav system?

With audio, it's not so much about the mic as it is with mic placement...just saying.

Yeah, about that A7s....

​Like all things, it is and it isn't.

​Yeah, it's funny to pixel peep at the full res image 'kuz when you look at it there's kind of a "hey, bit of image grain there..." and then when you zoom your image viewer 1:1 you realize that it's actually billions of stars layered as if sand on a beach. Dave Bowman was right.

I liked that series because it's ridiculous. I consider that kind of exaggerated impossible action stuff campy and fun.

​Oh yeah, I really liked 5th Element. Campy B-Movie enjoyment. Lucy should have been the same, but it tried to get serious. Luc can't really get serious. He doesn't have the chops for it. Still, fun director.

If you want to talk about lenses and practical application of them to achieve philosophical ennui, you can always check this out: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2015/02/image/a/warn/

Lucy was a good movie? Seemed to me like a director with big ideas losing control of them all or not having a decent plan for them in the first place. Appreciate the ambition, but it was way too silly even though it wanted to be serious. ​Yup. What they do in post with their skills and tech is incredible.

First of all, are you the filmmaker? I'll assume so...? Anyway, Question: "What is the point of Zeiss ZF Primes?" My answer: People like you use them because they give you unique image quality. How important is that unique IQ to the overall production? It depends. I do believe that if you're capable of creating good content that's engaging (and you are/do) the viewer isn't going to care if one lens is somewhat superior than another. Is that what you're insinuating? Personally, I try to prioritize creativity over intense technicality in my productions. For instance, I'm far more impressed with your decision to create a beautiful sequence of running shots through the woods than I am about whatever lens or camera you shot it on. If you're comfortable with the images you get from more affordable lenses and cameras, there's nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned. Some filmmakers (many on this website) prioritize the technical craft, some worry more about the art. Filmmakers craft with both, obviously, but I tend to think the former is so much more important than the latter. Neither is the wrong approach though. If you like twisting the knobs, that's perfectly fine. Still, I'd rather watch a film by someone with something to say with their images rather than someone trying to show me their most technically accomplished images. And, of course, if you're working with a crew you can rely on the technical expertise of colleagues while concentrating on the creative, so that's all part of the mix too. Plus, ultimately, the editor of this film kicked ass. Great images, yes, but the rhythm and flow of the material was perfect.

I own the GX7, North American specs. If I shoot 60p with a 60fps shutter I do NOT get smooth slow-mo when conforming the footage. I have to set the shutter to 125, then it's all good. I found with slow mo you can push the shutter up a bit more if you like, but I keep it at 125 mostly. With a PAL GX7, maybe a 100 shutter would work, not sure. Give it a test and see. Twixtor type plug ins are nice, but limited. You can use it for very selective moments/images and it'll look quite decent, but don't expect to apply it to a long clip of various shapes passing through the frame and have it work well. Edge warping can be an issue.

Tell us what kind of shoots you'll be doing.

DXO might be a fun diversion for people that aspire to be technical photographers and/or like to pixel peep, but it's hard to see why any of their analysis should be a great value for those of us that actually go out and make videos/films.

The Japanese really do protect their intellectual property rather tightly. Unfortunately, it's very reasonable to assume Canon blocked their firmware. But, you know, ML is giving attention to an open source camera --which might ultimately be one of the best things to happen to indy film makers. If Canon doesn't want to sell you a cheap motion picture camera that competes with their cinema line, I suppose that's their prerogative.

​touché. I'm betting that getting that roll shot developed and transferred might cost about the same as the camera I'm currently using though!

Well, to be honest, I didn't really understand why it's so highly pursued. That's my question asked in the context of my OP, as an admittedly bottom-level guy in video production. And, indeed, the cameras that most shooters seem to favor for superior skin tones are too rich for my blood, no question. But the insight of why it matters to some is welcomed and appreciated. JCS' feedback made a lot of sense. I think my "Holy Grail" metaphor was rather inelegant. I've always applied it to mean extremely holy, perhaps the most holy of all. And like all truly holy objects, it most likely doesn't exist. So, a pursuit for something unobtainable. And (this was my train of thought) if you can't really achieve it, then low-end video plebes like me might not want to make it such a huge priority for buying a camera. For some, the best color possible matters a lot and makes perfect sense. But, I'm just saying, for me, I can roll with limitations and try to make it work. And, yeah, my experience has also been that glass is a bigger culprit than a sensor.