Why are bad cameras the best cameras?

[webrunner5]

17 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

Here, at the pool in Tuscany there is a Dutch girl taking her first shots with a green sticker Contax G1 that she paid €700 for.

 

Wow I always wanted a Contax G1. That was a Very special camera with even more special lenses for it. You can't go wrong with one of those.

[hyalinejim]

2 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

You can't go wrong with one of those.

Yes, I think the image quality from the lens(es) will be stunning. But nowadays if anything goes wrong electronically it looks like you are basically fucked and can kiss goodbye to whatever you paid for it. And that's bound to happen eventually. Even at the height of my film GAS I tried to avoid spending over €100 on anything for this very reason.

Anyway, hers is clicking away happily. So far so good!

[hyalinejim]

12 minutes ago, Tim Sewell said:

It's actually amazing how well film holds up after long storage in less than ideal conditions

Giving them a bit of additional exposure is good for most colour negative especially if they're a bit exhausted, like myself. You get better contrast in the shadows, and usually better colour saturation at +1 or +2, even when fresh.

Exceptions that I've tested are: Ektar 100 (+1 is ok but box speed has better colour saturation). Same for Ultramax 400. And ProImage 100, I'm convinced is cut from the same sheet as Gold 200 and 100 is the perfect ISO for it.

[Tim Sewell]

Yeah I overexpose colour neg as a matter of habit anyway - including fresh rolls. With a combined chemical/digital workflow it seems to give a better base to work from. I used to think it was 'impure' to add digital adjustments to the scanned image (I was developing everything myself as well), in the end I decided that the goal of the exercise was to produce pleasing images rather than to acquire any bragging rights!

Stopped developing now - time poor - but I prefer to scan at home , which helps defray processing costs.

[Tim Sewell]

41 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

Exceptions that I've tested are: Ektar 100 (+1 is ok but box speed has better colour saturation).

Ektar is, to my eye, the most 'digital' of all colour neg. Lovely stuff which as above, I habitually overexpose (https://www.vrimage.co.uk/IShootFilm/Ektar-100-June-2018/) - but I prefer Portra.

[hyalinejim]

Lovely shots Tim!

The most "digital" film I've shot, in terms of colour, is Ektachrome 100 as its colour seems to be more accurate than negative film is, similar to how any digital stills camera has fairly accurate colour in RAW when rendered with the Adobe colour engine.

[Tim Sewell]

Always was a very sharp and realistic film. I've stayed clear of transparencies in my 'reborn' film usage as I'm not that great of a technical photographer, but back in the day I used to love making large Cibachromes from them - no other photographic print medium like it, ever!

And thank you for being so complimentary!

[mercer]

13 hours ago, hyalinejim said:

Yes, for sure! The 1n is reassuringly heavy and solid. It has an incredibly loud shutter sound which can be a good thing or not. And I forgot to mention it's one of the very few Canon EOS film SLRs with 100% or thereabouts viewfinder coverage.

Nice, the 1N sounds like a great camera. Since I already own some EF lenses, I'm looking to pick up a cheap rebel and get some auto features.

I must admit that I have a bit of GAS with film cameras lately. I started researching and shooting some film last summer. I started with P&S cameras and rangefinders but the first camera I bought was a brand new Nikon N6006 for $48. I didn't have an AF-D lens for it so it sat away in the closet and I eventually listed it on eBay... it hasn't sold yet. Since then, I started buying and shooting with the typical SLR cameras from the 70s/80s...

I'm narrowing down my favorites and will keep a few. I tried to make a rule to only buy an SLR that I had a lens for. Other than the N6006, I've held to that rule. Of course, this rule reminds me that I have too many lenses and I need to thin my herd.

And with that, I'm thinking of picking up an AF-D lens for that N6006... haha. It seems like a fine brick of a camera actually. Good news is that I have been looking for an excuse to buy the Nikkor AF-D 35mm f/2 for years...

Ugh.

[fuzzynormal]

On 6/26/2022 at 5:41 PM, kye said:

In terms of making good films, I think that the image is actually one of the least important aspects, contrary to the camera-television industrial complex and social media echo chambers.

Said this here before but...

As someone that's on a film-festival selection committee with a bunch of joe-lunchbox-folks, it becomes very obvious what floats their boat.

Horribly or lazily crafted films with a theme they like get the thumbs up while beautiful films with challenging material gets ignored.  They can watch stories that look incredibly lame but if they dig the film's message they'll be totally into it and forgive so much.  So, so, so much.  You all would probably get upset seeing how tolerant they are of bad craft.

So as it was, so shall it always be.

That's not to say us low-budget video folks shouldn't strive for a higher level of craft, but these minutiae levels of refinement shouldn't necessarily go before the bigger design, y'know?

I mean, 3 extra stops of DR is nice, but if you're shooting a shitty script or boring documentary ...what's that DR really doing for ya aside from self-edification (which is okay, btw, if that's all you want).

[kye]

8 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Said this here before but...

As someone that's on a film-festival selection committee with a bunch of joe-lunchbox-folks, it becomes very obvious what floats their boat.

Horribly or lazily crafted films with a theme they like get the thumbs up while beautiful films with challenging material gets ignored.  They can watch stories that look incredibly lame but if they dig the film's message they'll be totally into it and forgive so much.  So, so, so much.  You all would probably get upset seeing how tolerant they are of bad craft.

So as it was, so shall it always be.

That's not to say us low-budget video folks shouldn't strive for a higher level of craft, but these minutiae levels of refinement shouldn't necessarily go before the bigger design, y'know?

I mean, 3 extra stops of DR is nice, but if you're shooting a shitty script or boring documentary ...what's that DR really doing for ya aside from self-edification (which is okay, btw, if that's all you want).

Oh, I've been there.....

I remember one festival that I submitted to (as co-producer) where our submission didn't get in, but it ended up being won by a charming little documentary that was a thinly-veiled excuse to get old people to talk about sex.  The oldies were adorable and the content was gold, but it was shot absolutely terribly.  There were shots under and over exposed a bit, maybe one with a poor white-balance.  At one point there was a locked-off interview shot where someone bumped the tripod and the whole camera moved about a quarter of the frame and was slightly off-horizon, then about 5s later they slowly straightened it up again, but it was a funny moment in the interview (I understand why they left it in).  

Sure, it was funny and the concept was great - it deserved to win for best writing or directing or something...  but it won Best Cinematography.  It beat another entrant that was a music video that was super-clean and where the cinematography felt like a commercial project.  

It was literally at that moment that my sister (my co-producer and the director of our film) and I looked at each other, sighed, and gave up on festivals.

Most festivals I've seen operate behind-the-scenes using a dozen or so categories, normally like this:

• Film that the judges happened to like
• Another film that the judges happened to like
• The next film that the judges happened to like
• A film that the judges happened to smile at
• Some other film that the judges happened to smile at
• That strange film that the judges happened to enjoy
• A film that the judges happened to laugh at
• The film that the judges happened to think was cute
• The film from the people the judges know
• The film starring the person the main judge is sleeping with
• The film directed by the person one of the judges wants to sleep with
• Judges choice

[IronFilm]

9 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

That's not to say us low-budget video folks shouldn't strive for a higher level of craft, but these minutiae levels of refinement shouldn't necessarily go before the bigger design, y'know?

I feel it is important to specialize. Be that was a Gaffer, or DoP, or Sound Mixer, or Grip, or whatever. 

We're on a camera forum, so of course we're going to obsess over the pros/cons of a P6K Pro vs a C70! Or the Sirui vs SLR Magic anamorphics. 

We're not going to be discussing on the merits of using Walmart's own brand of foundation vs using Maybelline's foundation. (but if you're a MUA, then yup, you think about that, and might use something different depending on if it is the Lead vs an Extra)

This morning I spent a bit of time thinking about if I getting a Lectrosonics 200 series plug on transmitter is worth the cost savings vs a Lectro UH400A / HM ? (brief answer: if a UH200D? Yes, maybe. Anything else? Definitely not) But that type of minutiae level discussion about sound is not what I expect to see on EOSHD, that's what goes on over at JWSOUND instead. (well, except I couldn't find anything worthwhile over there discussing in the past the UH200D, as even for them that is too niche/old. Hoped to have better luck at R.A.M.P.S. but drew a blank there too)

 

Each individual piece of minutiae obsession is unlikely to make any major impacts, but when you add up dozens of these 1% improvements, then add up every crew person also striving for these 1% gains (which hopefully they're all doing, as they're all specialists in their crafts striving to be the very best), then you're seeing some huge improvements overall for the film itself. 

 

[fuzzynormal]

24 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I feel it is important to specialize. Be that was a Gaffer, or DoP, or Sound Mixer, or Grip, or whatever. 

We're on a camera forum, so of course we're going to obsess over the pros/cons of a P6K Pro vs a C70! Or the Sirui vs SLR Magic anamorphics. 

We're not going to be discussing on the merits of using Walmart's own brand of foundation vs using Maybelline's foundation. (but if you're a MUA, then yup, you think about that, and might use something different depending on if it is the Lead vs an Extra)

This morning I spent a bit of time thinking about if I getting a Lectrosonics 200 series plug on transmitter is worth the cost savings vs a Lectro UH400A / HM ? (brief answer: if a UH200D? Yes, maybe. Anything else? Definitely not) But that type of minutiae level discussion about sound is not what I expect to see on EOSHD, that's what goes on over at JWSOUND instead. (well, except I couldn't find anything worthwhile over there discussing in the past the UH200D, as even for them that is too niche/old. Hoped to have better luck at R.A.M.P.S. but drew a blank there too)

 

Each individual piece of minutiae obsession is unlikely to make any major impacts, but when you add up dozens of these 1% improvements, then add up every crew person also striving for these 1% gains (which hopefully they're all doing, as they're all specialists in their crafts striving to be the very best), then you're seeing some huge improvements overall for the film itself. 

 

You're absolutely correct.  I'd add you're definitely better positioned as a specialist to maintain a successful career than I am as a one-man-band-guy.

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Most festivals I've seen operate behind-the-scenes using a dozen or so categories, normally like this:

• Film that the judges happened to like
• Another film that the judges happened to like
• The next film that the judges happened to like
• A film that the judges happened to smile at
• Some other film that the judges happened to smile at
• That strange film that the judges happened to enjoy
• A film that the judges happened to laugh at
• The film that the judges happened to think was cute
• The film from the people the judges know
• The film starring the person the main judge is sleeping with
• The film directed by the person one of the judges wants to sleep with
• Judges choice

Astute.  However, at least in our festival the selection committee and the judges aren't the same folks.  So we have a smidge of integrity there.  But yeah, a lot of them still definitely judge on thematics, not craft.

[IronFilm]

43 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

You're absolutely correct.  I'd add you're definitely better positioned as a specialist to maintain a successful career than I am as a one-man-band-guy.

Perhaps. That's true to a certain point. 

If I say have hyper specialized to the point I'm only doing big budget international feature films which are coming to NZ (which isn't me, I'm very much a generalist "production sound" person), then I'll be certainly earning far more, but also I'll be more sensitive to any economic/political shocks which might happen that causes that source of work to be cut off. Much more so ever than a generalist wedding / corporate / generalist videographer would be, who'd have a diversified base of local work. 

 

 

[mercer]

38 minutes ago, fuzzynormal said:

But yeah, a lot of them still definitely judge on thematics, not craft.

This... except I would argue that theme is craft... just a different discipline. But I get your point. I'll take it a step further due to this thread. A writer/director with an inkling of visual sense could take any of these crappy cameras... or a camcorder and make a sale able or popular film. On the converse, most craftsmen on the technical side of filmmaking still need that writer or director to utilize or show off their craft.

[webrunner5]

Ergo, it's the story dummy. In this day and age you could shoot a movie with an EOS M and get the job done with a great script and good actors. The playing field is a Lot leveler in this day and age cameras wise.

Iti s probably harder to get sound right now than camera work right. And I would much rather sit though bad camera work than bad sound.

[kye]

1 hour ago, mercer said:

This... except I would argue that theme is craft... just a different discipline. But I get your point. I'll take it a step further due to this thread. A writer/director with an inkling of visual sense could take any of these crappy cameras... or a camcorder and make a sale able or popular film. On the converse, most craftsmen on the technical side of filmmaking still need that writer or director to utilize or show off their craft.

Absolutely.  It's a shame that many (most?) of the camera internet community are not craftsmen at all, just technicians.  Or are craftsmen of making camera content for social media, not a skill that really translates to almost any other use of a camera.

1 hour ago, webrunner5 said:

Iti s probably harder to get sound right now than camera work right. And I would much rather sit though bad camera work than bad sound.

Absolutely, sound is definitely more than half the video.

In my quest to understand good sound design, I've discovered that unfortunately sound-design-related-content is by no means half (or even a single percent) of the camera-related materials found online.

In terms of getting sound right, I'd really like to see cameras implement more than two channel audio.  Having four channels would mean you could capture a stereo signal as well as a mono signal with a safety track, or two channels where each has a safety track.  
It's easier to get levels right if you're focused on sound, but as a solo-operator working in uncontrolled situations, this would be a killer feature.  I've absolutely clipped audio in the past, even with a safety track(!), and I hardly ever remember to capture stereo on-location sound, so I end up with a mono channel and have to scrounge ambient stereo tracks from all sorts of places.  Four channels would be a set and forget setup that I would very much appreciate.  I know I can do it separately with an audio recorder, but then media management becomes an issue, plus the rig and battery and charging setups become impractical.

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, kye said:

Absolutely.  It's a shame that many (most?) of the camera internet community are not craftsmen at all, just technicians.

Meh, as a crew person on a film I am very much a blue collar worker, just grinding out each day doing my job in service of the director's (and actors) vision. Not my own. 

[IronFilm]

5 hours ago, kye said:

Absolutely, sound is definitely more than half the video.

In my quest to understand good sound design, I've discovered that unfortunately sound-design-related-content is by no means half (or even a single percent) of the camera-related materials found online.

In terms of getting sound right, I'd really like to see cameras implement more than two channel audio.  Having four channels would mean you could capture a stereo signal as well as a mono signal with a safety track, or two channels where each has a safety track.  
It's easier to get levels right if you're focused on sound, but as a solo-operator working in uncontrolled situations, this would be a killer feature.  I've absolutely clipped audio in the past, even with a safety track(!), and I hardly ever remember to capture stereo on-location sound, so I end up with a mono channel and have to scrounge ambient stereo tracks from all sorts of places.  

 

I'd need to check, but couldn't with the Sony FX9 (that does four channel) you send a source to more than one track? Then set different gain levels. 

https://www.manua.ls/sony/pxw-fx9k/manual?p=95

5 hours ago, kye said:

Four channels would be a set and forget setup that I would very much appreciate.  I know I can do it separately with an audio recorder, but then media management becomes an issue, plus the rig and battery and charging setups become impractical.

Drop the bag in the corner / by the tripod? Monitor the audio with a Lectrosonics IFBlue, and use Deity TC1 for keeping everything in sync for an easy postproduction workflow. 

 

[MrSMW]

On 6/27/2022 at 5:27 PM, webrunner5 said:

Wow I always wanted a Contax G1. That was a Very special camera with even more special lenses for it. You can't go wrong with one of those.

Ditto and wish I’d gone that route towards the end of my film days rather than the more boring Nikon SLR route.

G2 at the time I think…

Today, I couldn’t be bothered to shoot film but I’d like one as a desk ornament.

Or a 2022 digital version 🤩