fuzzynormal

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.

I'll be diplomatic and agree that I see where you're coming from, but in my defense I'll also say that it's hard to make a camera recommendation to someone without understanding the content they want to create and the filmmaking skills they already have. I mean, the 5-axis suggestion is valid, right? Your blog posts about 5-axis are the ones that led me to try it in the first place. When I try to support my opinion of that feature with a parallel contention that one might want to reconsider IQ as a priority, and focus on some of the many other aspects of film making, doesn't seem off base to me. But, if you want me to stop it I'll do so. No big deal. I do have some welding to do so I should get off the computer anyway. Cheers, sincerely.

​That's a curious take. Do you think my perspective would be applicable if we flipped your scenario? That someone could indulge in the perfect gear for them and then still go off on a shoot and blow it by not being creative enough --or being under skilled at lighting, lens selection, writing… having bad habits like boredom, laziness, poor collaboration skills, etc? I can testify from my own personal experience, I've done that. I've underperformed on shoots for an any number of shortcomings. So, you know, I can't speak for Matrox, but it seems like he got something, however small, from my viewpoint. If I say that worrying about IQ in cheap cameras might not be as important for someone as 5-axis stabilization or the ability to utilize light creatively, where's the harm in that? It's valid, right? And I'm just an anonymous guy on the internet so how much should anyone value my opinion anyway? An ironic thing too, as I consider that one of the most memorable and appreciative posts your ever made was this one: http://www.eoshd.com/2014/05/kendy-ty-t2i-one-guy-amazing-things-5-year-old-dslr/ I like your web site 'kuz you're kind of salty and have some aggressive opinion, but as long as we're respectful do you really want me to "stop it"? I mean, I know you're here to push gear and keep people excited by the cycle of technology; which I love too. But if some of us share a sentiment that touts production skill (or an overlooked feature of a camera rather than IQ) as a priority, should it really be dismissed and shut down?

​Good points all as ultimately it's your decision and what you're comfortable with. However, all great features are for naught if you don't put the camera in the right spot for a good shot! An awesome shot on a weak codec is better than a boring shot on RAW. The bottom line is this: you can make great images even if your gear has limitations. Skills before frills.

​I think this has always been my intuition as well, which is why I was curious why there's so much on-line hang-wringing about skin-tone and posed the question to begin with. Ultimately, I'm of the mind to chalk it it to gear-heads being gear-heads. I see the same rabbit hole attitudes in the automotive forums I visit. Dudes are spending their money of stuff so they'll overanalyze and focus their attention on intricate of details of the thing they just bought rather than have a holistic outlook. Fretting about how to wring .2 more horsepower out of their latest carburetor rather than, you know, actually learning how to drive fast around a corner. That narrow focus does work on large collaborative things where one is required to specialize, but might be counter-productive on things less so. I say this because I'm just as guilty of gear fetish as anyone.

If you're pretty good at shooting stills (looks like you appreciate light) and just transitioning to motion pictures, I think the option of having 5-axis stabilization is actually a valuable tool. I found it incredibly nice to be able to grab steady video shots while spontaneously holding the camera in awkward positions...and not have to fret about the video being distractingly shaky. In that sense, it's a lot like just "grabbing a shot" when doing stills. Want to hold the camera high above your head with one hand while standing on a chair? You can make it work quickly and easily. That's not to be underestimated. I just wish Olympus' video was a bit more advanced as my main client is slightly more demanding than what Olympus video delivers, but even if it less than most, it's still quite decent. I used one of their cams for a month on the road and found it a lot of fun. That's saying something. For me, it's a camera that encouraged creativity by offering the ability to quickly get shots I would't get otherwise. Not sure if you've considered that aspect of motion pictures, but it can be a great tool depending on how and what you're trying to shoot. A lot of people go on and on ...and on and on... about sensor quality in forums such as these that focus almost exclusively on the technology --it's almost as if we forget around here that there are so many various aspects of motion picture production that go into making good video and it's not about having the greatest sensor. Not even close, in my opinion. Andrew Reid has even posted examples here of a young filmmaker working with a 5 year old Canon ti camera who's films are more interesting and visually engaging than the most advanced production companies with the latest and greatest gear. Meanwhile many of us gripe about the indignity of having 12 stops of dynamic range rather than 13 as if our professional lives depend on it. As I'm sure you're well aware of, since you're making great photos with decent but not great consumer gear, a successful image is NOT always about the sensor IQ. However, if the best available IQ on a budget is a top priority for you then, yeah, you'd probably look elsewhere. I have a GX7 I've been using a lot. I like it. I dig small cams. (man, I'm on a coffee rant...) Aside from that, what's with your shop? Not allowing you to shoot in store with your own SD card? That's kind of obnoxious.

I think if you're still developing I'd recommend a cheap M43 Panasonic body with a set of used M43 fast prime lenses; 12, 24, & 45mm. Small, affordable, and will cover just about everything you might want to shoot except for extreme wide and long. Good for video and stills. I believe primes are better for learning how to shoot. Zooms allow you to develop too many bad habits at the beginning. Or, maybe an Olympus body; depending if you think the 5-axis stabilization is a big value for whatever you're doing. ​

Just about and camera body on the market can take exceptional stills these days...if you have the skill to do so I suggest you analyze what your needs are for film/stills and then adjust from there.