fuzzynormal

Make three personal project films in 2015. I only completed one this past year, so I need to increase my ambition.

Well, ​I'll disagree with that.

​not that I don't appreciate the parallel, but I doubt communism was ever gonna lead to innovations that offer us the nice camera toys we get to play with. And its its a whole different level of worship going on in NKR, wouldn't you agree, even a little bit? I mean, people can have an anti-American slant, but, really, under which government would you rather live?

Call it what you will, and ​I do agree, but the people of that nation ultimately do have their particular viewpoint of reality; twisted by terrible circumstances. But look, communism is philosophy and in NK it's now mixed with divinity nonsense. We might not like it, but can we deny it?

​nope.

​I'm talking about the NKR's government, not all the people. But let's consider the people. Regardless how they got there, plenty of the population now embrace and accept the hermit country's "philosophy" about the world. They don't know any better and have been indoctrinated in the ruling class' worldview. Not sure why that's hard to understand, controversial, or what's baffling about it. Seems like a reasonable reckoning of the situation to me. After all, even some Polish Jews supported the Nazis. (Ah... Godwin's Law! I suppose that was inevitable) Human behavior is complicated; especially in survival mode.

​I would have a difficult time eating without the internet. This is unfortunately true.

​Cool. That's literally an unequivocal statement. I'll actually watch the film and see if I agree with that assessment. But, as far as I'm concerned, the Koreans I've met, worked with in Seoul, (and got incredibly inebriated with) are awesome. They're more "out there" than many Americans and their pop culture is incredible. I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I do distinguish between the two countries and their people.

  The movie is in poor taste for the expense of laughs.  That's pretty much how a lot of comedy works, whether you find it subjectively humorous or not.   Besides, NK's ARE weird and small.  They have a very unfortunate philosophy about life and government that leads to inability to actually feed their population.  Is that funny?  Can be, depends on context.  There's humor in everything seen from a certain angle.

​Bongs across the world spark up and rejoice. Just proxy your IP through a U.S. open source VPN if'n you want to check it out. Hack access to the movie that caused the hack.

Hey OP, Here's something that's not terribly funny (IMHO) as the comedic timing editing is way too off for my tastes --and I'm guessing the director/actors weren't willing to "kill a few babies" In order to land the jokes a lot quicker and just land the gag, but.... you really get a sense on how the lighting is a viable character of the comedy. Plus you get a breakdown tutorial on how they did it. The production is clean and considered. http://nofilmschool.com/2014/03/lighting-tutoral-capture-9-visual-styles-without-moving-your-camera Also, here's the down-est and dirty-ist trick I know to quickly determine if you're lighting your stuff somewhat effectively: Squint super hard while looking at your setup. If your subject(s) details disappear into silhouette you got some work to do. Only works if you're NOT trying to obscure the subject, of course.

​Yeah, it was targeted. Directly. That's only part of the story. The industry news here in SoCal also notes that Sony's network infrastructure was a bit wide open. There might be a much more banal pragmatic reason Sony was attacked. Perhaps more of a crime of opportunity of a hacking collective rather than some sort of nation-state-war-game? Internet security experts around here are certainly questioning if was indeed NKR. No reason to take the U.S'. F.B.I. accusatory word at face value anyway. They have a well earned reputation as being wrong. A lot. Being a bit nutso is in the organization's DNA; grains of salt with those guys. Their cop work isn't always stellar. To me it feels like news getting ahead of the facts. I suspect in a few months the story will read a lot different. Aside from all that, someone made a movie and the production company/distributor backed off because of a threat of violence. That to me is BS and disappointingly un-American. Moreover, I think Sony was grateful that in the midst of their cyber attack they had this ray of bright PR shining on a stinker of a film. The movie is going to make ten times as much money as it would have otherwise. However, to suggest that the film should be buried because it's a stupid film (so what?) is wholly misguided and upsets my U.S.A. values. (yeah, we do have values - just not a lot of good taste) This is a place that tries to tolerate people like Fred Phelps because we respect the first amendment of our constitution. Man, if we're to get upset at bad comedies, then bring out the guillotine for Adam Sandler or Daniel Whitney. THERE'S some serious crime against humanity. Yippee ya kay aye.

​A massive ball ache with a lot of money making potential what with the global PR from this past week. If anything talks in Hollywood it's money. (Ball aches too, actually, but there's usually prostitutes involved) Stoner comedies are what they are. They're the "Tyler Perry's Madea" for suburban white kids that love stupidity. It's a huge market here. Don't underestimate the financial power of that segment of U.S. society.

"This is surely the best that could happen to a goofy American comedy like this." "It is. Sony knows what it's doing to take advantage of the PR situation ...and don't call me Shirley."

Nowadays, for my corporate stuff I use three modern m43 primes 12,20,45. They're all f2 or faster. They're crisp and clinical, so effective for that realm of work Aside from that I have Canon L24-70 2.8, and a sigma 10-20. Also a bunch of random goofy c glass, Pentax, Nikon, and Russian stuff. But it's all for personal play, mostly. I still carry a Nikon 50 1.4 and an old 5d with me though. Sometimes a savior for an easy good looking interview shot Also, I rent as needed. Used a m43 14-150 and 100-300 for my last travel gig. I tend to work in the down and dirty run/gun side of things, so a modest collection of "working" glass suits me well. If you see the clips I've put up on my Vimeo page you can see how it fits.

The shots where you can see stars in the background/sky are wonderful and impressive One interesting thing to me, regarding most of the shots in that tech-film, is the fact that a lot of the footage looks exactly like "day-for-night."

Well, good lighting is not incredibly difficult. I find its more about knowing what not to do than anything else. Theres lots of online tutorials to pick up the basics. Once you actually start to "see" light and get confident to manipulate it to your advantage, it gets pretty easy. You have the lens and camera right now to make images with impressive quality and resolution. I wouldn't worry about that.

​Ouch. It hurts just to read that.

Bought a $10 1970's Pentax lens. It created a pretty great motion picture image for my GM1; used it on a short film and had a lot of fun. (the film was kinda lame, but that happens) Also learned a few standard symbolism techniques for narrative cinematography and used them somewhat effectively in a production.

Good ambition. You're onto something, you just need to refine it. I also did sketches (a looong time ago) for fun. My ideas and my comedy were pathetic, but the process of making mistakes while filming was invaluable. My advice is this: you're trying to fix the wrong problem. If you want your work to look better you need to worry about a bunch of other things before lens selection. And, honestly, a slightly wide lens is ideal for comedy stuff. You're already set. I'd fret most about lighting and knowing how to create strong balanced exposures on subjects. Your lighting is uninspired and kind of distracting. If you can't learn to do it well, maybe hire someone that can...or is at least willing to try hard to figure it out. It's heavy lifting, so you need to love the challenge or find someone that does. I can't emphasize it enough. The thing that separates good shooting from bad shooting is not the gear, it's using whatever gear you got with the right light. Good shooters chase good light or make good light. They combine it with numerous others imaging skills to make something special. This is why, in filmmaking, you'll see a talented 17 year old kid with an old Canon Ti making films incredibly better than some camera-gear-head with a brand new [insert latest expensive and popular technical camera here] and every lens at his/her disposal. The deal is simple, if you want to get better than everyone else running around with a great camera these days (aka: everyone with a vague interest in DSLR/mirrorless video), then get better where it actually makes the most difference. No lens can salvage a poorly lit frame. And in case it needs saying: exposure is not about pumping enough light into a shot, it's knowing how to place or remove the right amount of light where it needs to go for pleasant shots to result. It's like music. You don't make nuanced music by playing a cacophony of relentless sound. Good music happens in the space between notes. Lenses? A very important tool, however they're only a part of everything --And this only addresses the simple technicalities of production! Governing the artistic performance side of it all is another consideration altogether...and your camera is one of the main characters! ...Of course, you could be like many and just buy camera gear as a catalyst to some creative motivation. I've done it...

​Actually, many would want it to say that no matter what crap they framed up. Or, even better, "Great Shot! That was so much better than what you'd get from [insert competing camera brand here]."

Ha! Funny responses. It's true. For some reason there's a weird psychology of some people that tend to believe expressing exaggerated criticism somehow makes them seem insightful. No, it just make them seem silly.

I still use FCP7 and just carry around my cameras as they are. That's all.

Opinions are like...

Yeah, they achieved it in the 1940's. How's that for antiquated?