Snowfun

I agree totally with Andrew. Things are more likely to change if those with ethical standards and values delete their own YouTube channels. It’s taking the moral high ground to appreciate that censorship isn’t the solution (ie banning someone else) but, rather, to state by action that “we” want nothing to do with it and leave. The line between genuine human tragedy and entertainment seems to have dissolved in a sea of mediocrity.

I’d rather a 4k sensor & lens unit with a “video assist” to do the job of recording and monitoring. Happy with external batteries. A 4k micro plus a 5” 4k VA (with raw). As a bonus it would be useful to interact with the camera menus via the VA - the buttons on the micro are truely dreadful. A power input socket rather than the mess of the expansion socket might also be a good idea. But I think I’d buy an A7Siii with 10 bit first because I do a lot of low light stuff.

For what it’s worth, the Edinburgh International Film Festival considers anything >30 minutes a feature. Less than that a short. https://www.edfilmfest.org.uk/press-industry/submissions/submission-rules-and-regulations

The only advantage of being supportive of an anti-neutrality stance is that it might - ironically - be seen as more open and transparent? WYSIWYG. Being pro-neutrality is often only a banner for advocating ones own definition of what is “neutral”.

It could be interesting to see what the Red Hydrogen brings to this debate. 10bit? Or will it ship with quite basic - albeit competent - specs with the corollary that this, that and the other will all be possible - but only with an add-on module. Tim

“PEOPLE ARE SHOOTING THEIR FUCKING VIDEOS VERTICALLY ALL THE TIME” Standing up is an interesting technique & variation...

Most of my holiday films (friends & family stuff only) are based on this. I often characterise my work as being “moving photographs”. I find it a challenge to assess just how little movement is required in a scene to maintain the sense of dynamism and interest. It is fascinating, I think, just how even the slightest movement can bring a scene alive. Ideal for films which don’t have an obvious story but are intended to portray beautiful scenery or architecture whilst travelling. Tim

I have two bmmcc - both in cages with a video assist attached using 7” wooden camera arms (with nato attachments). Works well (I put nato clamps on the ends of both arms and rails on the accessories/cage). That seems to be better than the recommended one clamp & one rail set up. I attach it to vLoks for tripod use and carry a good quantity of canon batteries. Nice little cameras - I found my Pocket really did not like cold weather. I’ll be interested to see if the Micro is more tolerant. Tim

I was beginning to think that we need JCS to tell us whether this is some obscure AI bot at work... but then I realised there’s an issue with the “I” part...

Quoting rates of pay (and worse, “I’d not do it for less than X”) is irrelevant. It is unfortunately likely to be the case that they can find someone cheaper (free) if they need to. It doesn’t really matter whether that person is better/worse more experienced/less experienced. If it’s “good enough” then it’s good enough. If it isn’t then from their perspective it doesn’t really matter. They’ll find someone else. The only light at the end of a dark tunnel here is that you have been offered an opportunity to prove that your services are invaluable to a market (apparently) prepared to pay. It is obviously your choice as to whether you want to make the investment (of time, primarily) required to exploit that opportunity. Perhaps this is a naive way of looking at things but in today’s economic climate (outside London, Paris etc) I suspect it’s also realistic? Looking at it as being asked to work for free appears very unattractive. But looking at it as being handed an opportunity to impress and develop a market on a plate is more positive.

Damn, I bought the contact zeiss 28mm which was only a few hours ago “all I need...”

I hope we get to hear the outcome!

That would be a useful indicator if the question concerned the purchase of a lengthy tape measure. But I admit that as an inexperienced film maker I’m not sure how this helps. That comment notwithstanding, i enjoy threads like this - I am always impressed by how the eye of an experienced cinematographer sees so much more than I can. It is fascinating and slightly humbling to realise that things which, to me, look the same (even on repeat viewings!) actually reveal so much more.

Heavens above! They’ll be making them without film next!

In response to the “one camera” for life post, I thought it might be fun to ask the same question for a lens. In some ways a more realistic situation as lenses do not become obselete at the same rate as camera technology. Me? I’d love to say a Cooke Anamorphic. But I’ve never used one (and am never likely to although it is always added to the Christmas list!). I do like my little Voigtlander 35mm Leica lens - possibly sentimental rather than artistic reasons. So, you’re allowed a lens. Which one & why? Tim

I too have just bought a Kowa Prominar - bigger than expected! Will make my BM Micro look slightly silly (hoping to rig it on 15mm rods with lens support but not yet sure what taking lens might suit - 35mm?) I hope to post some results once my step up rings arrive. Tim

Following Mattias I'd suggest three - if it's good then your audience will let you know that they want more. Making it too short and having an enthusiastic audience is much better than making it too long and risk everyone getting bored. Once you've introduced one idea or joke or theme don't assume the credits last - you'll need to keep them coming (your "black eyes" will result in an initial one-off "wow" but you won't get the same reaction in episode 9!) This comment based on experience of live productions rather than film. "I wish I'd done more" is inspirational and a motivation to keep going...

A but I don't really know why.

It's easy for everyone to agree that the out of box settings are not optimal. Less easy for everyone to agree what they should be. And that, presumably, is the problem facing Sony, LG, Panasonic et al. I know several people who have bought new 4k TVs only because the picture looked so good in the shop (including a couple who assumed that it was the TV which made things "4k" rather than the broadcast...)

It must an interesting and stressful job for the person (committee?) who makes the final decision that all this promo footage is good enough to be released into the public domain.

It is sort of possible to rig the micro into something approaching that? OK... possibly only a rough approximation but a micro plus VA or SmallHD is a compact unit albeit running from the Canon rather than Sony batteries.

JCS: I think you need to step back and reflect a moment. As, I suspect, you well know, there is no way to answer your question - it is impossible for "me" to prove anything to "you" if you are suggesting that everything exists only in your imagination. Reductio ad absurdum. That isn't profound philosophical discourse, it is merely rather silly. Not dissimilar to a child asking "why is the sky?" Why do you ask the question here I wonder. Why not join a philosophy forum and debate the issue (although simply quoting Cogito ergo sum might not impress!). If you are genuinely interested in this and similar questions why not study on a mooc or enrol on a philosophy programme? (Yale offer one which is closely linked to cognitive science which is, I recall, another interest?) To some extent you actually do answer your own question - the very fact of posting such a (in my opinion, ridiculous) question indicates a need you have to receive external stimuli. The "fact" (it's not really a fact because you are imagining it) that you ask the question presupposes that there is an "outside". Or, rephrase your question - If nothing external to "me" actually exists then does anything matter? (So why post?) Jonesy asked you a question - are you alive yes or no?

That misunderstands Heisenberg - it isn't that nothing can be known with certainty but that for related pairs (position and momentum being the usual ones) the more precisely one knows the value of one, the more uncertain the value of the other. As someone working in a leading medical/biomedical science research centre, I can assure you that research is published in journals such as BMJ, Lancet, NEngJMed, Nature etc. All available to the public. Of course, that will not reassure you because if you state that this is just "my reality" there is nothing I can say to refute that. As something of a "scientist" and a "philosopher" (as are my colleagues) I'm not sure we do divide between "God" and "computer simulation" in the way you describe. Yes, certainly, there are those who do resort to one or other of those schools of thought as an explanation - but by no means all. It is a very anthropomorphic question (perhaps unnecessarily so) once you use the term "know" (as I think you appreciate because you quoted the term too). To some extent "academics" use "big words" in order to precisely describe the complexity of reality - it's not really the fault of academics if non-academics don't understand! Having said that, one of my main interests as an academic is in science communication so I agree that those of us working in academic research have a responsibility to communicate. I'm currently working on a series of short music-video inspired films which communicate to a general audience our biomedical research themes. To the extent that theee qualify as "art", I hope they are an example of art conveying "reality". On a related point - no academic research scientist I work with would ever use words such as "true" or "truth" at work. The language of scientific "fact" is the language of probability. And that is neither mystery nor Heisenberg - it is simply the scientific method. We do not publish statements of truth - we publish our methods (what we did and how we did it), our results (what we observed) and our conclusions (what we think this means). With an invitation for others to test - is it reproducible? Have we made an error? Is the probability calculated satisfactorily? See the CERN announcement for the Higgs boson for possibly the best example of this (and YT hadron rap for a super bit of science communication!) Some interesting themes here.

Not opting for the reincarnation option after 54 years? Isn't "truth" a social construct almost invariably used by one section of society as a mechanism of control, authority or influence over others? Perhaps even just to promote a common bond. Trivial example: look at the oft stated mantra about "Canon colours being the best" - that is almost certainly true IFF the community defines it to be. Some things we colloquially say are "true" (e.g. 2+2=4) are merely tautologies. The really interesting things such as love, beauty, harmony (or the opposites) are much more difficult to describe by any form of objective scientific description - perhaps this is where & why the truth of artistic expression is so important?

"This could be a useful camera in the field if you need to pick up a shot" ignoring the "GoPro killer" tag, Ed's comment above remains valid?