fuzzynormal

Sure, I'll give you a deep dive. I'll also vent a little. You might imagine there would be some worry matching footage, but for this project, surprisingly not really much of a big deal. We had worked with the Alexa footage for months, so I didn't fret at all that a GH5 would do the pick ups. Why? None of the Alexa footage was shot with a deep consideration for the lighting. It was all very workman-like. And the "eye" of the shooter was decent, but average. That's really the biggest thing. Anyway, the cinematographer and director decided to bring a rigged out Alexa to a run-and-gun-available-light shoot. The dudes are older gents and they just felt like "the best" camera was the logical tool to use. Not true, honestly, but you couldn't convince the cinematographer of that notion. Which is kind of a legacy mentality with older guys, but that's what happened. There was a political element here too. It's a decent budgeted doc so the "shot on ARRI" rhetoric was desired. Okay, so the main reason re-shoots were required: there weren't a lot of compelling shots that could juice the narrative. The footage was decent to look at, but not dynamic. The cinematographer really couldn't get around easy with this big 'ol rig and sticks. Interesting things would happen situationally with the characters, but he would unfortunately deliver a single shot when dozens were needed for a good edit. He'd just end up being burned out physically as the day went along and couldn't move into interesting places for useful footage. Ultimately, a big powerful camera was being underutilized because of "reasons". An Alexa camera delivers nice footage, of course, but when you're pointing it into blown out skies and shooting mid-day with it on the regular, it's not like it'll give you miraculous results. Here's the other rub that had me slapping my forehead, the cinematographer and the director really like the crushed blacks sort of color grade. And they didn't mind the whites being blown, so... That's a style that was typical a few decades ago, right? Well, you're taking a 14 stop Alexa, throwing away a ton of information, and delivering 9 stops for the final project? That's certainly a look. And Michael Mann loves it as well. But then, why the hell spend the $$ on an Alexa in the first place? Now, in this story you're getting a bunch of bias from a guy that spent my entire career as a one-man-band. If my background was from the more collaborative perspective of traditional filmmaking, I suppose a lot of this wouldn't even stick in my craw. Don't discount my naivete'. As for lenses, the cinematographer was using a very clinical variable. Ziess cinema Zoom 28 - 80 mm. And he liked f5.6. Great lens, but neutral character to it with how it was used, so when we went out for more footage I slapped my Olympus 12-40 on my GH5, packed a few ND's, and went with that. At the end of the day, it turned into an effective modest film. Could have been better, wasn't a disaster. imo, it was too verbose and that ends up being a slog, but all that talky stuff appeals to people that vibe on the themes of the film. And while the film doesn't stretch to get beyond that sort of thing, the director is happy with it, so all's well that ends well.

Here's an anecdote regarding our level: A-Cam was an Alexa Mini on a documentary shoot. The cinematographer didn't really get enough variety for the storytelling the director wanted. We tried to make it work in the edit booth. Couldn't do it. Late in the edit/production when the budget had been burned, the two of us went back into the field to get necessary pick-ups. Those pick ups ended up covering close to 1/3rd of the film. All the footage was cut together, color graded, and released on one of the major American TV networks. Every shot looks cohesive. That pickup stuff was done with my used, ebay purchased, 9 year old GH5. And there ain't no way anyone watching that film could readily tell the difference between the two. That said, anybody got one of those Alexa-Minis laying around they want to give me? I'll trade you my GH5.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1964095-REG/gopro_mission_1_pro_ils.html A "dumb" m43 mount on 1"? Honestly, from my perspective, it's a perfectly fine idea. If people out there don't understand why a dumb m43 mount is going onto a 1" sensor, those folks can just stick with GPro's fixed lens offerings.  For those that know how to utilize the tool, it'll be fine and even a bit more than adequate -- as the people that'll use this gear/mount aren't really fretting about AF or e-iris. The big thing here, I think, is that with adapters you can put anything on there now. FF to C-mount. Hell, go back decades and buy some of the lenses camera companies were putting on their NTSC video cams, if that would work.   Whatever.   That said, my speculation is that they're not even that interested in this camera doing anything special sales-wise in the marketplace. Most likely this iteration of their product is a loss leader put out there for bragging rights. Basically, like, "Look, our products are a serious cinematic tool now!" "Lenses!" "Prestigious-Lens-Brand-This!" "Prestigious-Lens-Brand-That!" The real value in that sort of BS, in this era of YT marketing, is more than worthwhile. As for sensor size, the best footage I ever filmed in my life was captured on 1" sensors. So, it's hard for me to by too concerned about a small'ish sensor -- as far as that ever matters anyway.

Yeah, just casually looking at flange distance, I was, like, "How's that work?" But those of us poors do hope that there are ways to outflank expenses, regardless of our ignorance. After all, the image of the Arriflex camera with a Nikon mount conversion is cool, as my go to lens is an old Nikkor 50mm that I put on my m43 gear all the time. Still, the more this 2C sits on the shelf and I look at it, the more I'm keen to really take a run at shooting a reel. Now, just have to write a worthwhile idea... And, in a neat wrinkle, I could use one of the oldest cameras with the newest film stock: https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/product/camera-films/verita-200d-5206-7206/

As an American I'd like to quote the immortal words, the best words, the POTUS has shared on this holiest of days, "Praise be to Allah" Seriously though, it would be wonderful if there were more folks truly (not just pretending) trying to live by the actual authentic philosophies of the New Testament. If only we could be so lucky. Happy Easter.

Yes. Which is why the debate might best be framed on a personal level and a philosophical one. Therein lies a certain simplicity, sure; a simplicity that can be fair, or not, to an individual. With all this capability the genie bottle has been opened and that bottle has been chucked far away into an open ocean. Hang out with the genie or go float with the bottle is how I look at it.

Same. As for the machines, an AI generating things just won't ever be legitimate craft to me, regardless of perceived value by those that end up engaging with it. This doesn't mean it can't be employed to make art. There's a ton of nuance and philosophy as to why there's a line here, at least in my mind. That is my hill to die on. I fully expect I will be in a shrinking minority in this regard. As for "A Gift For All Ages," here's a relevant anecdote: I thought about replacing the puppet with an AI generated cartoon. It's something like 6 shots. Pretty easy. To a layperson this would certainly elevate the perceived craft of the final film. They'd be, like, "A composite cartoon is in this goofy movie!?? Neat!" AI generated, or not, wouldn't enter into their consideration as long as it looked good. Doing AI for this wouldn't sit right with me, however, as it wouldn't be a human creating the images. Now, this cartoon idea absolutely would be derivative -- as it would be an homage to the classic MGM stuff Hanna Barbara did in "Anchors Away." So, a wholly unoriginal concept. But, for me, the respect I have for that craft just won't let me take the easy AI route. If I ever do replace the puppet with a cartoon it will be me learning how to mimic the look using Blender or hiring a true 2D animator to do it. That's a philosophical choice. Because ain't no one, really, outside of me, that would ultimately care. Or, hell, would probably even see the film, if I'm being honest. But I just can't do it. Can't use AI. Humans are inherently attracted to quality. And that quality needs to be a human creation to matter to me.

My buddy has a prime lens set for lend. Would this be possible:

I've been told it's a decent camera for indy films.

Let's keep the debate goin' ...Can't wait for the next great prompt artist to really bring their vision to the screen. No one prompts as well as that Vogel dude. That guy prompts. Why try to create a golden hour scene when you can just ask for it? Nothing says artistic cinema like a computer deriving and stealing other's hard work. :-| Should we go to an art museum to look at some lesser talent's paint-by-numbers? The creation matters. Now let's do motion pictures. Cinema has always been craft as well as the art. Minimize the craft, minimize the art.

Gotta find a retired old dude that's now an aspiring guitarist -- that used to work in production in the 90's and happens to be sitting on a closet full of short ends. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

This video is really cool. The density and scope of info is perfect for a neophyte.

35mm is daunting, but it's not my first time shooting film. It's been decades, but I've rolled 16mm before. I just think it's funny that I'm so frugal about modern digital gear, yet here I am seriously thinking about spending 200x more money to accomplish ... well, let's be totally honest, nothing of substantial IQ advantage! I mean, I bought a EM10III for $300 a few years ago, and that camera will shoot impressive 4K. I can't even get 1 minute of 35mm film shot and scanned for less than that. I'm very amused at how ridiculous this all is.

As a poor independent documentarian, we might need to have a talk about the word "affordable." This 35mm film stuff is the deep side of the motion picture pool and I really shouldn't be swimming in it!

Borisfx you say? Well, since this is a thread about editing, good spot to mention the old Media100. Anyone here know what I'm talking 'bout? That Boris guy was busy in the 1990's. Actually, if you want an old school editor, you can take a journey into the wayback machine and download his media100.com/ Along with the early and buggy versions of Premiere (you can't fault Adobe for staying true to their legacy), the M100 was the system on which a lot of early NLE adopters did corporate work. NTSC, baby! 1/3rd of a megapixel! And all of that plugged into a 68040 motorola Macintosh. BTW, similar chips are in my Amiga/Video Toaster, which I still have and still use it to play "Worms" on it as well as "Pinball Fantasies." My Amiga is right next to my Vectrex Video Game System that I got for Christmas as a 13 year old. Anyone here play Minestorm? Anyway, back to computers: the Video Toaster's NLE, "The Video Flyer," was the biggest POS to ever even try to call itself non-linear-editing. Their horrible attempt at it basically took a nail gun to the coffin of the company's, NewTek, earlier successes -- successes that started in the late 80's. Geeze-Louise, really going into the past now. [insert obligatory "Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk" joke here and also maybe the "Onion on my belt" Simpson's gag]