Lumix Documentary Shooting

[fuzzynormal]

What kind of filmmaker thinks he can just grab a LUMIX camera and shoot a film?  Don't people know you can't make a movie without accurate skin tones, non-oversharpened footage, good camera work, and a real microphone?

Somebody should tell this so-called "filmmaker."  He's obviously in way over his head! ;-)

https://youtu.be/jpjRQokeQNo

 

[IronFilm]

[sam]

I love doc films like this most of all.  Exactly the tool for the job. 

When I watch narrative films, however, I want to escape reality. I don't want an overly sharpened, overly saturated, tiny sony sensor version of footage filmed with a camera whose image looks similar to the local broadcast news. 

Definetly going to watch this doc. Awesome trailer!

[mercer]

Which Lumix camera was used? And I want to save my judgement until I see the Devil’s skin tone. 

[fuzzynormal]

33 minutes ago, mercer said:

Which Lumix camera was used?

Some sort of FZ model looks like.  I've had a couple of these over the years as backup cams on my travel shoots.

33 minutes ago, mercer said:

I want to save my judgement until I see the Devil’s skin tone. 

Too much magenta.

[mercer]

Hmm, I think the image of the Lumix may be misleading...

http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3478912/william-friedkins-exorcism-doc-devil-father-amorth-gets-release-date/

In this article, the writer references a Variety article where Friedkin states, “I had to shoot it alone, obviously. The conditions were that I come along with no crew and no lights. So I used a Sony still camera that shot high-definition video. I had only that camera running and I was about two feet away from them, probably even closer.”

So either Friedkin forgot which camera they used, or for that shot, he just held a different camera, while someone else shot him with the production camera, for effect?

This grab from the trailer shows the camera in use...

It’s still hard to tell, so I cropped in...

It certainly kinda looks like a Panasonic, but I suppose it could also be a Sony RX10. Either way, he seems comfortable recording audio, in camera, with that little Sennheiser microphone... without even monitoring it.

I suppose they may have used multiple cameras on the film but what I find most telling about the whole idea...

Last May, while we were arguing which 4K camera is the best and most suitable for creating a cinematic image, William Friedkin grabbed a camera, plugged in a mic and shot a film.

Pretty damn cool!!!

[IronFilm]

On 4/25/2018 at 12:59 PM, mercer said:

 

Last May, while we were arguing which 4K camera is the best and most suitable for creating a cinematic image

And we didn't even get to come over a decision for this....

[Kieran]

According to AV Club, he used a Sony mirrorless.

https://www.avclub.com/william-friedkins-ridiculous-documentary-the-devil-and-1825345270

In any case, the image is quite horrible and digital. Kind of makes the documentary look cheap and trashy. 

[Damphousse]

3 hours ago, Kieran said:

According to AV Club, he used a Sony mirrorless.

https://www.avclub.com/william-friedkins-ridiculous-documentary-the-devil-and-1825345270

In any case, the image is quite horrible and digital. Kind of makes the documentary look cheap and trashy. 

Agreed.  For whatever reason there are a lot of documentaries out there that look like crap.

I suppose some of them were shot years ago before the large sensor camera thing really came into its own.

I do cringe a lot when I watch documentary stuff these days.  It's embarrassing.  You can pick up a sub $1,000 camera and get excellent result.  There is just no excuse anymore for this type of stuff.

[fuzzynormal]

51 minutes ago, Damphousse said:

There is just no excuse anymore for this type of stuff.

I sort of agree with this.

However, the guy doesn't give a rip about IQ, he just went for it.  He's obviously a capable director based on his legacy, but obviously he's also a shit shooter.  So then, considering all that, what's more important?  That he did it or that he did it poorly?

Look, I shot and edited a PBS thing a year ago.  Didn't write/direct.  It looked pretty good ... but it was also as boring as a month old turd.  I'd rather watch whatever tacky melodramatic silliness William Friedkin decided to make than rewatch any of the episodes featuring my work.

These are the existential musings for many filmmakers.  Do you get in your own way by adhering to the demanding technical strictures of the craft, or do you just not care so much and get 'er done, focusing on more important things like storytelling?  (or in Bill's case here, an apparent trashy cash grab, coasting on his notoriety)

It's not easy for many of us, but just deciding to be creative however you can is honestly the best way forward.

[mercer]

I’m surprised it took so long for someone to say this looks like trash. I could not disagree more.

This looks like the future to me.

Friedkin is more in tune with the future and how media will be produced than any prosumer on this site. Grab a camera and tell a story, that is the future. Unsane is a good example as is that Amazon Prime movie called The Break In. Those people made a small fortune on a found footage movie shot on an iPhone.

Sure Friedkin cashed in on his legacy and he probably could have used a better camera, but this is just a sign of things to come.

Did it look great, no not really, but I was more interested in the circus side show element than the artifacts or overly saturated image. That camera has horrible preamps, but it was good enough for me to hear and get freaked out by the Latin or Aramaic or whatever the Devil’s official language is.

In some ways, I think it’s better to have a shite image than a decent one. When you compare a good, prosumer image from the GH5 or a7sii... or whatever to an Alexa or Red, they pale in comparison... they look good but off. When you look at an image from a crap camera, there is no comparison whatsoever, so it doesn’t even matter.

[Kieran]

I couldn't help compare this to another famous director's handheld documentary: 'Junan' by Paul Thomas Anderson was shot mostly with a BMPCC (there's also some Go Pro and drone footage in there).  He hadn't intended to shoot it this way but when his filming gear was confiscated by Customs in India he had to shoot it with what he had in his hand luggage i.e. The Pocket Camera.  Despite the shakiness of the handheld footage, it still looks so much better than the Friedkin doc. 

 

[anonim]

15 hours ago, mercer said:

This looks like the future to me... but this is just a sign of things to come.

It seems to me quite contrary - that future is not in using of bad image-looking cameras. There could be many reasons why Friedkin "Hurricane Billy" in his 83 old age and reputation choose or say something about usage of underappreciated cheap cameras... Also I think that is not out of discussion opinion that Friedkin is more in tune with the future and how media will be produced than any prosumer on this site. Why it must be so?

But maybe it might be very interesting topic, at least to me... how and what "prominent" movie makers actually manage to create out of controlled big budget conditions and teams? How and why generally in modern world someone become famous...

For example, I'm completely dissapointed with result of, say, Dunkirk - although proclamed as "serious" or even artistic movie, it has so weak scenario, absence of consistency and emotional effects, with hundreds of million dolars budget, I even called it tasteless in comparison with its ambitions... Or even Blade Runner 2049 logical-scenario wise - is that really result of years of thinking and rethinking idea and planing to be powerful?... etc.

Also, I've recently with great curiosity watched "film about film" about Zvyagintsev debut "The Return" - in all his honesty, he disclosed that opportunity to shot that one, his breakthrough movie (without any previous significant experience or reputation) of his career was mere plexus of lucky coincidences to find motivated producer driven out of any profitable logic...

To be in ancient mood - fate/destiny is all

[mercer]

18 minutes ago, anonim said:

It seems to me quite contrary - that future is not in using of bad image-looking cameras. There could be many reasons why Friedkin "Hurricane Billy" in his 83 old age and reputation choose or say something about usage of underappreciated cheap cameras... Also I think that is not out of discussion opinion that Friedkin is more in tune with the future and how media will be produced than any prosumer on this site. Why it must be so?

But maybe it might be very interesting topic, at least to me... how and what "prominent" movie makers actually manage to create out of controlled big budget conditions and teams? How and why generally in modern world someone become famous...

For example, I'm completely dissapointed with result of, say, Dunkirk - although proclamed as "serious" or even artistic movie, it has so weak scenario, absence of consistency and emotional effects, with hundreds of million dolars budget, I even called it tasteless in comparison with its ambitions... Or even Blade Runner 2049 logical-scenario wise - is that really result of years of thinking and rethinking idea and planing to be powerful?... etc.

Also, I've recently with great curiosity watched "film about film" about Zvyagintsev debut "The Return" - in all his honesty, he disclosed that opportunity to shot that one, his breakthrough movie (without any previous significant experience or reputation) of his career was mere plexus of lucky coincidences to find motivated producer driven out of any profitable logic...

To be in ancient mood - fate/destiny is all

I think you missed my point or, in my haste, I didn’t explain it properly. So let me try again...

Regardless of this film or its IQ... or its lack thereof... what I see in this movie is the liberty to grab a $300 camera, plug a mic into that camera, and shoot a film.

With the distribution landscape changing every day, the appreciation for classical film theories and practices becoming obsolete by this changing landscape, and the growing need for content... the future of low budget media distribution will fall to the extreme low end, there will be little need for the prosumer videographer.

There will be high end and low end.

More average, everyday people will become “content creators” and they won’t spend $2000 on a camera. They will use their iPhone, their GoPro, a point and shoot or a cheap DSLR.

The idea of investing thousands of dollars into a short film will be a thought of the past. Now this won’t happen tomorrow but in another ten years... maybe.

I think the question is... will the quality of the lower end image acquisition become better or will the taste of the viewer become more ambivalent?

And if famous Hollywood film directors see a way to make money on a shoestring budget, how long will it take before band managers realize they can shoot music videos on an iPhone or an LX100 or a t7i? How long will it take for a bride and groom to ask their future brother in law or guests to shoot their wedding on their iPhones?

In a lot of ways this is depressing but in some ways, this is liberating... cream will always rise to the top.

So, if you are talented, you’ll have nothing to worry about. A talented filmmaker with good ideas will make any camera look good. But also a normal person with a great idea, will get their 15 minutes.

[anonim]

47 minutes ago, mercer said:

...cream will always rise to the top.

I'm not sure... Alas and unfortunately, my life experiences are mostly completely opposite and in accord with, say, conclusions of (to sum many similar) José Ortega y Gasset's "The Revolt of the Masses"... It seems to me that "Cream of the Masses" and, more important, "Cream of Manipulation with Masses" dictates taste, sensibility and thoughts - allowed inner and outer reality.

I'd say that more realistic scenario is definitive melting of "high" and "low" end - to low end. Just look on the top of high-end cream-trend: "La La Land" than "The Shape of Water".

Scripts as "Synecdoche, New York" even now (10 years later) for public look like hieroglyphics.

[Kisaha]

Friedkin, Anderson, Hertzog, Sod/erg could paint some film with their bloody (literally, like deep red) farts and still be on top of most lists.

For some of that footage in that film, I wouldn't be able to find job ever again, but the director of the Exorcist filming the real exorcist, is more significant, than I, go and find An exorcist and do a doc (there are already some). 

I am not sure if these examples are indication of anything at all. The tools are becoming better and better, that is true since the first humans used a rock (or a bone, Thus spoken Zarathustra e.t.c!) to kill something for food or defense (or attack), it just happens that moving images are one of the most modern forms of art, and modern journalism (with all its forms), so it is the last to evolve.

I was watching "Kurt and Courtney" the other day, it was terrible. Terrible image, terrible audio, no story whatsoever, and some editing and journalistic acrobatics. Even if it was shot with an Alexa and 5 piece crew, it would still be awful, but then again, one of the best documentaries I have ever seen shot on a camcorder, or actually, 5 of them. The story is king. 

 

[fuzzynormal]

8 hours ago, mercer said:

the appreciation for classical film theories and practices becoming obsolete by this changing landscape, and the growing need for content... the future of low budget media distribution will fall to the extreme low end, there will be little need for the prosumer videographer.

There will be high end and low end.

You got it, and "prosumer" is my end of the pool.  More and more kids are peeing in it these days, and I don't expect that to stop anytime soon.

[mercer]

17 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

You got it, and "prosumer" is my end of the pool.  More and more kids are peeing in it these days, and I don't expect that to stop anytime soon.

Yeah it’s going to be tough in another few years. I’m in the trade show industry and a recent trend I’ve been noticing is the exhibitors shooting their own booths with small point and shoots, iPhones or even GoPro cameras. I’ll hate to see what it’s like when millenials are in charge of budgets. 

For the most part, I’m a hobbyist, but shooting narratives, even on a shoestring budget, is getting to become an expensive endeavor. So, I was contemplating getting small event gigs... birthday parties, family reunions... low budget kind of stuff just to fund my short films. But when I hear about what’s happening out there, I wonder if it’s worth it... and I am kind of oblivious as to where to start to be honest. 

With that being said, films like this, shot like this, I find really liberating. It reminds me more of 2010 than what the DSLR Revolution unfortunately turned into. The idea that one can buy a Sony a5100, RX10, Canon 80D or G7Xii or Panasonic P&S and shoot something acceptable is pretty exciting to me. And good or bad, or cashing in on his legacy or not, it’s films like this and Soderbergh’s Unsane and that The Break In movie that will make these $300 cameras or phones acceptable in coming years. Will they ever look as good as an Alexa or a Red... nope... but what camera under 5 grand comes close anyway?

For those that eat at the low budget, I understand the distress this idea may cause.

[BTM_Pix]

28 minutes ago, mercer said:

So, I was contemplating getting small event gigs... birthday parties, family reunions... low budget kind of stuff just to fund my short films. But when I hear about what’s happening out there, I wonder if it’s worth it... and I am kind of oblivious as to where to start to be honest. 

Just go and re-buy that FZ2500 and get on with it.

Hell of a camera for that sort of work and - truth be told - a lot of other stuff too.

 

[mercer]

16 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Just go and re-buy that FZ2500 and get on with it.

Hell of a camera for that sort of work and - truth be told - a lot of other stuff too.

 

Yeah that camera is a blast... Definitely my favorite Panasonic I ever owned. And weirdly enough, other than my first ML Raw video, the slow motion video, from the FZ2500 of my friend walking and getting shot probably is my most liked video.

But compared to the RX10ii, I don’t know if it’s worth the price increase. And to be honest, if I end up looking for small event jobs, I think I’d rather have a Canon for its AF. An 80D seems like it would be a workhorse for little Billy’s 5th birthday party.