All Activity

I was reminded of this one too.

But all of that was previously already possible by using something like the Insta360 Go mounted on the brim of a hat. And as I previously mentioned, that has the advantage of actually being the perspective of the person using it, vs the perspective of their chest.

I think the POV Head Tracker should not be seen merely as a vlogging gimmick or as another accessory for people who want to film themselves walking down the street. There are many different ways of filming, framing and capturing reality. The most “professional” approach is often understood as the most controlled one: you plan the shoot, you discuss the framing, you block the scene, you decide where the camera goes, you decide what the subject is supposed to give you, and then you execute. That is obviously valid, and it is the basis of a lot of good cinema. But it is not the only way to make images. There is also another tradition: a more intuitive, observational, physical and spontaneous way of filming, where the camera is less a machine imposing a pre-decided frame on the world and more an extension of the filmmaker’s presence inside that world. That is where I think something like the Insta360 POV Head Tracker becomes interesting. The question is not only “what can it do technically?” The question is: what kind of relationship with reality does it allow? When you are operating a camera in the conventional way, you are always doing several things at once. You are looking, framing, correcting, adjusting, deciding, reacting, and at the same time you are also visibly present as “the person filming”. That presence changes the situation. It changes the people in front of you. It changes the rhythm of what happens. It can intimidate, formalise, freeze or theatricalise reality. In documentary, this is especially important. The more you plan, the more you risk fixing the subject before you have really encountered it. You may think you are observing reality, but you are already working on a construction of reality. You are no longer only receiving what is in front of you. You are fabricating a gaze, and the subject starts to exist inside that fabrication. Of course, complete objectivity does not exist. Every image is already a point of view. But there is still a big difference between a camera that constantly announces itself as an intervention and a camera system that allows the filmmaker to remain more physically and psychologically inside the situation. This is why the POV Head Tracker interests me. It may allow the filmmaker to film without constantly “operating” in the traditional sense. The camera can follow the natural direction of the filmmaker’s attention. The image can become closer to a lived point of view rather than a pre-composed shot. Not perfect objectivity, obviously, but perhaps a more immediate form of subjectivity. That distinction matters. A head-tracked gimbal camera could be useful not because it replaces deliberate cinematography, but because it opens another mode of acquisition: a more instinctive, embodied, less intimidating mode. It lets you be present with the subject while still filming. It can reduce the gap between seeing and recording. In that sense, I see a possible historical parallel with what happened when smaller 16mm cameras became available. Those cameras did not simply make cinema smaller. They changed the grammar of cinema. They allowed filmmakers to move differently, to follow people differently, to enter rooms differently, to film streets, faces, accidents, gestures, private moments and unstable situations in ways that would have been much harder with heavier, more industrial tools. You can connect that to cinéma vérité, direct cinema, the Nouvelle Vague, the New American Cinema, Jonas Mekas in New York, underground and independent filmmaking, and later the influence of that freer, more mobile language on figures like Cassavetes, Scorsese, and the whole post-studio generation. Even mainstream cinema eventually absorbed some of that looseness, that handheld energy, that search for immediacy. Jonas Mekas is not just an abstract reference for me. I had the privilege of knowing him personally in the mid-1990s, at the Figueira da Foz International Film Festival, which he used to attend. In that same context, I was also fortunate enough to receive an award as best daily press film critic. More importantly, a project I am still developing today was born precisely from that contact with Mekas. So when I refer to him here, I am not only invoking a name from film history. I am also referring to a very concrete personal encounter with a way of understanding cinema as diary, presence, immediacy, memory and life. The technology did not create those artistic revolutions by itself. But it made certain gestures possible. And when a tool makes a new gesture possible, it can also make a new kind of cinema possible. That is how I would look at the POV Head Tracker. Not as “AI tracking for creators”, but as a small step toward a different relation between body, gaze and camera. From the end of last month and carrying into this June, I worked on the making-of for A NOITE, Leonel Vieira’s film adaptation of José Saramago’s homonymous play. During the shoot, we used the Osmo Pocket 3 alongside other cameras, including a Sony A7S III, an FX30, a Panasonic GX80/GX85 and other small-format tools, Insta360 included. The film itself was being shot on two ARRI cameras, so this kind of low-profile equipment was obviously not what people on a cinema set are most used to seeing. Even Leonel Vieira, the director, looked at the Osmo Pocket 3 and jokingly said it looked like a toy camera. But that was precisely part of the point. I took the initiative to use it without hesitation, accepting the risks of bringing that kind of device into a professional film set, and combining it with different optical tools, including black mist filters to create atmosphere, Sirui anamorphic lenses and other accessories. In that context, I became very aware of how valuable it would be to have a device that lets me film without constantly managing the camera as an object. Not to mention that 10-bit Log recording is now available on the Luna Ultra as well. In a making-of situation, the best moments often happen before people know they are “performing” for the camera. They happen between takes, in hesitations, glances, silences, rehearsals, small gestures, private exchanges, and moments when the machinery of cinema briefly becomes human again. But the moment you raise the camera, adjust the frame, move closer, correct the angle, ask for space or visibly operate, you can lose the very thing you were trying to capture. The reality in front of the lens changes because of you. And that is fundamental in a making-of context: to be as minimally intrusive as possible, so as not to disturb the set of the main film being shot. The reactions of the professionals involved are, in many ways, the real subject of a making-of, and those reactions should not be manipulated by the visible presence of the image-capturing device itself. In our case, we were working with a very small crew: two to three people at most. In fact, it was necessary to convince Leonel Vieira to accept a maximum of three people, because ideally he preferred two, and sometimes only one person could be present. In those situations, when only one person was shooting and I still needed two possible angles, a camera A and a camera B, the only viable option was to have a B camera as autonomous and unobtrusive as possible, which is exactly how the Osmo Pocket 3 was used. With a device such as the Luna Ultra and its POV Head Tracker, that kind of work would become much easier, not only during the shoot itself but also later, when reaching the post-production suite and needing more options in the edit. So a device that lets the camera follow your attention, while your hands and your body remain less occupied by the act of filming, could be extremely useful. It could allow the operator to be less intrusive, less theatrical, less visibly extractive. It could make the camera feel less like a weapon pointed at reality and more like a witness moving through it. That does not mean this is for every situation. It is not a substitute for composed cinematography, lighting, blocking, lenses, or intentional mise-en-scène. But it could be very valuable for documentary, making-of work, rehearsal footage, street filming, travel, observational cinema, and any situation where spontaneity matters more than perfect formal control. The professional instinct is often to control everything. But sometimes cinema gains power when we control less. Sometimes the most authentic image is not the one we planned best, but the one we were able to receive before reality became aware of our plan. That, to me, is where the POV Head Tracker could become genuinely interesting.

@mercerI started my cam journey in earnest on the 5D MKII/IIII with the ML hack - so I have a soft spot for that RAW workflow! And I still have two 5D MKIII that I will prob never sell. I currently have a R5OV as travel/casual/C cam but I am not feeling the APSC look. So when I recently rediscovered the FP I became a bit obsessed with the idea of having something that small and powerful become my casual/travel cam. Meanwhile I'd just keep the R50V as a C-cam to my R5Cs. But as you say, the FP seems so finnicky that it has required an unprecedented level of research/due diligence on my end. So I've been wavering back and forth for about a month now. As it stands, if I can get a used FP in good condition for $600 USD (just missed one with the modded back dial for that price!) then I'll go for it (knowing I'd still be buying the DPL screen mod, the DPL base cage+SSD holder+SSD bottom mount and side accessory, a Meike or Vizelex Smart adapter/VND, and the pdmovie 3). If not, there's the Lumix S9 and maaaaybe the Nikon ZR but that then I'm getting to R6V territory as far as size and price.

I'm not too worried about a short that will be sent out to a dozen or so festivals and then make its way onto YouTube. If I was hoping for distribution, that would be another story! I remember seeing this trailer! I think it’s a great one to add.

You may have read me post before that I came to the FP, due to my love of 1080p (actually 1920x818) ML Raw on the 5D Mark iii. I seriously love the image and it still reigns as the best image and favorite camera I have ever owned, but being 1080p and an EF mount camera, it could be "soft" with certain lenses and I couldn't use some lenses I have collected over the years. That said, in some ways, the FP is the spiritual successor to the 5Diii ML Raw because both are "uncompressed" raw and both have, or lack, a manufacturer designed post production workflow. Coming from ML Raw, this never bothered me. With the FP, I set the picture profile to OFF and used the camera meter to judge exposure... as long as you hover +/- 0, you will be able to finesse the image in post however you want to. So I never worried about seeing an accurate representation of anything with it. I made sure I didn't clip the highlights, used False Color to check skin and hit record. As far as EF mount lenses go, I have 4... the Canon 28mm 1.8, Samyang 50mm 1.4, and two modified lenses... a Minolta 58mm 1.4 and the Canon FD 50mm 1.2 L. I have so many other vintage lenses that I didn't even get an EF adapter. However I was planning to bring out my 5Diii more often, so I looked at purchasing (repurchasing) a couple lenses... the 24-70mm f/4 and 35mm f/2 IS, so I did glance at a few of the electronic adapters for L Mount thinking they could pull double duty. At the time I was more worried about IS translating over to the FP than I was ND, so the Sigma adapter seemed like the safest bet. The FP was intended to be an inexpensive and tiny raw camera that I could walk around with and grab shots for short films, so I wanted the footprint to be as minimal as possible, which unfortunately is near impossible with the FP and eventually frustrated me. I later bought an inexpensive GH6 and the Arri LogC3 upgrade key, with similar intentions but the crop annoys me. Now I think I'm going to sell both and get a Nikon ZR, and be done with it. I have my 5D3 and a Canon V1 for one film I started working on and the Nikon will be for the other film. All that said, the FP is a fine camera and the image is pretty damn good, it's just too quirky for my run and gun incognito sensibilities, but if you don't mind rigging it up a little, I can't imagine the S9 could come close to the FP in pure image quality. In fact, I was thinking of waiting to do a major camera upgrade and getting the original S5 as a stop gap for my second film and then reevaluating my cameras this time next year, and I may still do that for the IBIS, but in reality, the image is more important to me, and the flexibility of a raw workflow, so I'd probably just keep the FP for that scenario... even though the GH6's IBIS may have spoiled me a little.

Got it! I think for me, the biggest things I've been trying to wrap my head around (because I've only been able to learn about this cam via bits and pieces of anecdotal info from Youtubers and owners posting in FB/Reddit groups) are: (i) The monitoring situation: So as I currently understand it - the Ninja V is the only monitor that - when used with the Ole Berek LUT - shows you a fairly close representation of what the RAW image actually looks like in the field compared to what you get on the FP's own screen (as far as exposure, etc) (ii) What is the best EF-L mount adapter with VND? I'm seeing that the issues with the Meike version might have been addressed and I'm unsure whether the Meike and Fotodiox/Vizelex Smart adapter/VNF versions will fit when using the Dark Power Laboratory Base cage and.or Ultimate cage. Any help/thoughts on this would be appreciated. All that said, I'm still interested in it but if I can't get a good deal on one here in Toronto, I will prob just end up getting an S9!

Left handed girl form 2025 comes to mind. They shot on an iphone.

What will you use this kind of thing for? You seem very excited, but I don't really know what I'd use this for.

Greetings Fellow Creatives! My quest continues to make every looping track on my site available in higher-quality Ogg format, so this week we have: "THE ITALIAN HEIST" You can listen to it here: https://soundimage.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/The-Italian-Heist.ogg And freely download it here: https://soundimage.org/world/ "CHUGGIN' THROUGH COLOMBIA" You can listen to it here: https://soundimage.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/Chuggin-Through-Columbia.ogg And freely download it here: https://soundimage.org/world/ As always, all of my music and sounds are 100% free to use in your projects with attribution. PLEASE CONSIDER SUPPORTING MY EFFORTS Here are some cool ways you can help: https://soundimage.org/ogg-game-music-mega-pack/ https://soundimage.org/ogg-music-packs-2/ https://soundimage.org/donate/ See you in July! 🙂

What happens after you release the "film" for public consumption ? Could a city come after you legally ? Since we are talking guerilla style, you know your being a little bit naughty 😳 I personally dont see an issue with two friends talking on the side of a street with another filming unless of course you start closing down streets. Then i can understand the need for permits and counsel approval. Half or three quarters of youtube must be filming outside. I watched a youtuber shoot a timelapse in Italy a week ago. Set up a tripod right in front of some famous place, plonked a dlsr on top and away he went . Mind you he did set up close to a large rock to stop people tripping over it. He also moved around did some behind the scenes stuff. So he was there for awhile, it was very touristy, nobody bothered him. No idea how car parking works in your area. If you could access a minivan, throw a couple of magnetic signs on it, saying such and such tours. When a bunch of loud tourists jump out of it and proceed to wander round willy nilly taking photos, if three of those people are of to the side, it wont alarm any one. You could also do make up and have cold drinks and snacks in the van. Heck have some people tossing a football or baseball around, nothing can be more American than that. I live in an agricultural area, we rely on backpackers to help pick the seasons fruit. I'm always seeing backpackers hanging out in the main street using the free wifi from the banks i think. Seeing phones and tablets is pretty much accepted.

I'm once again reminded of Noam Kroll, who has gone a long way into this rabbit hole. My recollection of his method was a balanced approach, where you make a plan and then improvise and adapt within a limited range. My impression was that he would storyboard things as a way of mentally rehearsing the shoot, and would end up with a clear idea of the logistics of the shoot, the equipment required, etc. Location scouting and anticipating the light etc as you normally would. I believe he also gained a clear idea of which shots were required, and which had some flexibility. Then when he was shooting he could make sure that he got enough for a functional edit, but was also clear enough in his thinking that he could adapt the plan to compensate for any challenges that arose and also to take advantage of any serendipity or inspiration that occurred. I suspect that this is a very deep skill, to plan and then improvise a shoot with an understanding of how the choices being made will go together in the edit. I know enough about editing to know that it's a jigsaw puzzle where you can have two small sequences that work well but don't cut together directly, so unless you can find a way to get from one sequence to the other then you have to change one of them so they're compatible. To do this for a whole scene, or whole film, in your head while you're still shooting it is beyond what I could even imagine, but I'm sure that the talented cinematographers are easily up to the challenge. Noam actually went further, describing a process where he worked with two actors and where he 'designed' what would be shot ahead of time, with the major plot points and story beats, but didn't fully script it. On each day of shooting the three would have breakfast and discuss the motives of the characters and how the scenes should go. Then they'd shoot while improvise the scenes, filming as they went and exploring ideas. It was freedom within a planned structure. I believe he was shooting one or two days a week, and so after shooting he'd review the footage and do rough edits, seeing what worked and what didn't. Then he'd 'design' the next shoot day accordingly, sometimes keeping on with his overall plan for the story but other times seeing something in the footage that made him adapt the narrative. I suspect that the skill is in knowing how much you can stray from the plan and knowing in which ways to adapt to make the end result better than if you just shot it as planned without any adapting to the situation. Certainly if you make a plan and then prioritise which shots are the most to least important then you'll have a good chance of coming back with a functional edit. My impression of great travel content is that most shots are good-but-not-great, and the art is in the edit and how they're combined. EOS-M and primes and a Fujinon-TV 14-70 f/2 will do a lot of the heavy lifting in making it look like cinema instead of video. In my mind you'll need to pay attention to how to keep the camera stable and then look at your references and study their coverage so you can design yours. By shooting on less than pristine equipment, you'll have to get things right in-camera as you won't be able to mess with it in post as much. Specifically, being able to zoom in a little in post can be useful if a random passer-by is staring. If you were shooting this with a modern mirrorless and sharp/neutral lens then I'd suggest using the highest resolution possible just so you have that flexibility. Your concern for getting stared at is legitimate, but the focus is to not get people staring while they're in the frame. As such I'd suggest getting more coverage using tighter framing and shallower DOFs, and for shots that are wider, simply getting more footage so you can edit around people staring. AI can potentially help if there are random people staring in shots you really want to use, but if you can edit around these moments (or prevent them from being in shot in the first place) then all the better. It's also worth considering that there are a number of things you can do that will lessen the changes of people noticing you and the camera, or lessen the people who are currently in frame noticing it. Another strategy is to investigate how much b-roll can be used in the edit without it taking away from the story. You may be able to get away with putting b-roll on top of a good audio edit, essentially having an L-cut followed by a J-cut where the audio goes from one character to the another but the visuals go via a b-roll shot from the location. I'm sure there's a deep art to doing this, but it's worth grabbing as much b-roll as you can while on location (especially if shooting has to wait for any reason but you're able to shoot). You can even return at a later time to get more footage, or better yet, take your kit and go shoot the location ahead of time so you can do a dry-run with the actual rig and also get a sense of what the location is like to shoot by actually shooting in it.

So far, we have: The French Connection The Day Of The Jackal Escape From Tomorrowland Chubby Rain Woody Allen (Annie Hall, Hannah and Her Sisters, Deconstructing Harry) Lost in Translation I think this is a great list! I know that Sean Baker’s Tangerine was shot this way, but I’d rather not sit through another of his films. I've written a drama short. Two characters, 11 pages, lots of walking around town. I live in Portland and I’ve shot all over town before without ever once being hassled (except by some in a crisis of mental health). But I’m really more interested in seeing what kind of aesthetic choices might even be available to me when balancing that with coverage needs, moving quickly, and not attracting too much attention. I'm always so envious of New Yorkers for this very reason. You can fill the frame with sidewalk commuters and often no one will even bother to give you a second glance. I can’t think of any other US cities where this is true. Lovely screen grabs, Kye. If any of these were publicity stills for a film, I’d want to check it out. Especially the 68mm shots. Great mood and sense of place. I think that this quote sums up some of the decision-making that I am facing. I could totally go in there and “wing it”, just figuring out my shot as I went. But I want to rely on natural light, which means timing certain shots for certain times of day, and then that raises the question of how much planning I want to put into each scene, and ultimately how the visuals will compliment the story. I’d rather not lean too far into the documentary aesthetic. After shooting my last five shorts with my C70s, I’m actually thinking about shooting this film on a hacked EOS-M with c-mount lenses. I’ve been collecting them for a while and have three sets of primes, plus some great zooms. I’d personally put the aesthetic available with this (windowed) sensor and these lenses up against anything, I like it that much. I think the reason that no one really wants to do this is because it’s one of the most difficult digital cameras to work with, AND on top of that, the most difficult lenses to work with. But I’ve been tackling the challenges presented by these one by one, and I think I have them pretty well sorted. We shall see! Current plan is to hide a Deity PR-2 recorder with a lav on each actor and attach a timecode box to the audio input of the camera. Stabilize with a steadybag. Transmit the image wirelessly to a producer and make up artist in a car, along with refreshments for the actors. If I end up working with long zooms, I might give direction over a phone and provide a discrete earbud to each actor so that I could also monitor.

No idea about you guys, but I am in love with this tool accessory... pretty useful in those much different configurations: Head tracker, finger tracker/tracking, etc.* ; ) *shoulder mode: More comparisons here and there or yet this one too from same Chinese tester BTW. And here, more for the new Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro with the sample(s) of the new add-ons introduced (whereas Luna Ultra reaches 4K120fps across 20-60mm, DJI's Osmo Pocket 4P/Pro goes up to 4K200fps at the telephoto end). Haven't you bought a gimbal-pocket-cam yet? This is for those who will buy one then : D ;- )

Further to the above, and further to what Mercer wrote.. The smaller the camera package the more amateur and less pro you look, which impacts how the authorities treat you Often locations care if you have a tripod or not, especially in crowded situations where a tripod takes up a lot of space and is a tripping hazard. Alternatives to a tripod are obviously hand-held and also shoulder-rig, but the often overlooked options are a monopod, and Mercers trick of having a monopod where the foot is resting in a pocket of a belt, so the camera effectively gains the stability of the operators waist Depending on the focal length and type of shot (medium, close-up, etc) the primary consideration in crowded places is if people will walk in between the camera and subject. My travel shooting with my family was done mostly on a 35mm F1.9 equivalent and this enabled medium-close-ups and closer in very crowded places without anyone getting in-between and wider than that with people or obstacles in-between. If you want to get more distance than that and not get wider then you'd need to go to a 50 or tighter depending on the distances involved. I personally find this hugely situationally dependent as it depends on how crowded things are, how noticeable the operator is, how willing to walk in front of a camera people are (or how much/little they care about you) etc. Combined with the distance / density / shot-size / focal length interactions are the DOF considerations, specifically how much do you want to separate your subject and at what distances. Normally this also blends into low-light requirements but I think these days if you use a dual-ISO camera then that consideration drops away and you can get by with F2.8 or even F4 at night in well-lit areas. The main reason that aperture isn't an obvious choice (just go F1.4!) is that if you can choose a slower lens then you can consider a zoom, which changes the shooting equation drastically. Depending on how you're planning and scheduling the shoot, the ability to move fast without changing lenses might be considerable. The French New Wave approach of getting minimal coverage and preferring longer takes is something to consider. There's a huge difference in logistics between storyboarding the whole thing within an inch of its life (and having many setups and doing hair/makeup/wardrobe touchups between takes etc) and running the whole scene a couple of times with a wider master then going a bit tighter and grabbing the more interesting shots as colour for the edit. Noam Kroll has shot short films on film and only had ratios of 2:1 or similar, and for certain sections only shot one take because he wanted to spend more film on making the important parts more interesting. For aesthetics it's also worth considering what you'll do in prod vs post. The traditional prod approach is to use filtration and select a lens / aperture combination that gives the rendering you want, and then you'd shape the light and control your lighting amount and ratios etc to suit your ISO/aperture/filtration. This makes prod very cumbersome and if you don't control the location perhaps impossible. The alternative approach is that you choose much more neutral equipment and push a bit of a look in post. There are obviously limits to this, but for example by picking a lens that's sharper across its range you can vary the aperture to control DOF and exposure in prod and then degrade it in post (soften it globally and in the corners, add distortion, add diffusion, add vignetting, etc) and you'll have a consistent look despite using the lens at different apertures, etc. Think about DR. The more DR the camera has the less of the scene you will clip and the more flexibility you'll have to adjust exposure and ratios etc in post without making the clipped areas visible. The less DR you have the more carefully you'll have to expose, and the less flexibility you'll have with moving shots that go between dark/light areas. The more DR you have the less you need to vary the aperture on the lens to compensate, or the less you'll need any lighting etc to compensate. Think about the contrast of the final film. The more contrast you apply, the more leeway you will have with the cameras DR, so the previous point gets easier. Film was great in this sense as the negative was so wide and flexible and gave a lot of leeway in post. Monitor as well as you can. Use a large monitor and a viewing LUT. The more you can visualise the end result while shooting the better. I find that shooting in uncontrolled situations means there are always things in the frame that I'm reacting to. This is in alignment with the situation and performance too - shooting in crowded public places will have the cast reacting to their surroundings, so you should be reacting to their performance and to your surroundings too, so the more clearly you can see the shot the more coherently you can react to it. Embrace the chaos. Separate the ideas of controlled coverage and creative experimentation as much as you can. The idea of getting a master in the can and then experimenting is great because you can ensure you've got an edit that can work and then you can grab risky but potentially great shots after that. Much better to have the final edit cut between neutral shots and really great shots that embrace spontaneity and add to the film than struggling in the edit by having to cut between shots that are neither safe nor creative nor sensitive to the surroundings. Some example 35mm F1.9 shots I've taken (please ignore the grading - these were from a long time ago!!!): More recent shots with 68mm F1.5 equivalent: and more recent with 70mm F2.0 equivalent: If you really wanted a minimal set of focal lengths, I'd suggest a 28mm for wides and ultra-packed situations, a 'normal' lens in the 35-50mm range, and a longer one in the 70-100mm range for shots where you are at some distance and don't want a wide. Your aesthetic should really begin with the emotional arc of the characters in the film, filtered into scenes, then the equipment chosen to express the intended aesthetic while shooting in the specific circumstances of the location and logistical assets and challenges.

Lost in Translation was famously shot in Tokyo without official permission. They shot in public with a very minimal crew and moved fast to try and keep ahead of the authorities. They chose this approach primarily because it was almost impossible to get permission to film there at the time. I saw a great doco about the making of it but it's been removed from YT now so can't share it. I don't know what sort of info you want to know to prep for your film, but there are snippets of BTS online if you dig. This video shows a bit of BTS from on location (linked to timestamp): From what I can remember / piece together: shotonwhat says it was shot on Kodak 320T and 500T using Aaton 35-III Camera and a Moviecam Compact Camera with Angenieux and Zeiss Super Speed Lenses they moved fast to stay ahead of the authorities the cast and crew when out shooting in public was only a few people (camera, sound, director, and talent and I think that's it?) and were all non-Japanese people, and if anyone official came to tell them off the they would just be apologetic but use the language gap to effectively prevent any communication. They had a Japanese fixer who stayed a distance apart from the group (so they wouldn't be noticed by the authorities) but that was helping with logistics etc and could step in if the situation required it they had challenges with locations (link to timestamp) another snippet of them on location - tripod but not clear if they're using any lights What information are you looking for specifically?

What are you trying to do? As long as you don't have a big rig with lights and a shotgun mic, then you should be good. I've walked around Philly and NYC and see plenty of people shooting video everywhere with gimbals and even tripods sometimes... although I wouldn't recommend that. The key is to look like a tourist and find locations where there aren't many people passing by, or it's so busy, people don't even look twice at you because you look like a tourist. And be prepared to move to a different location if you have to. Philip Bloom, hardly a narrative filmmaker, but his use of super long lenses gives him the freedom to be a little far from the talent. Separation between camera and talent can be a good thing if you're trying to steal shots.

Some Woody Allen films, maybe?

The Guerilla Film Makers series of guides is getting on a bit but offers some solid insights into zero budget that are still very relevant. https://guerillafilm.com/books/

Elements of The French Connection and The Day Of The Jackal (original version) were shot were shot guerrilla style without permission. Escape From Tomorrowland was shot completely surreptitiously inside Disney theme parks. Of course Chubby Rain* is a classic of the genre where even its star Kit Ramsey was unaware a movie was being made around him. Chubby Rain* also established the principle that without deduction, profit percentage, deferment, ten percent of the nut then, for cash, every movie costs $2,184 to make. * Obviously a bit tongue in cheek but Bowfinger is a great movie that does offer the proposition that if you want to do it then do it.

Can you think of any narrative films that were shot with natural lighting minimal crews in busy areas/cities? I’m doing some research for an upcoming zero-budget project, trying to figure out a solid approach to the aesthetics. I really want to get out of a locked set for this one.

I'm thinking of selling mine. I have had mine for a couple years and understand the camera's ins and outs if you need any information. As far as your question, I'd be most worried about the usb-c port. Most of the available cages do not have cable clamps, so I'd imagine most FP users haven't used them with the camera. So I'd verify with the seller that the port functions and the connection is tight.

https://www.cined.com/lidarac-app-for-tilta-nucleus-m-ii-and-nano-ii-introduced-turn-your-iphone-into-a-lidar-rangefinder/

I have finished modifying the painters pole i bought. Comparing the cheapness of selfie sticks verses the price of branded monopods, the painters pole does comes in dearer than a selfie stick and a fair bit cheaper than any monopod. It did need some modifications with a drill and a hacksaw it also required 2 x 1/4 bolts which have now been replaced with 2 black knurled 1/4 inch large diameter "bolts" which makes disassembly or assembly a breeze. The mission 1 fits on the crane m2 gimbal without issue even though it is a little bigger and heavier. i did remove some mass off the base plate, that allowed me to move the camera sideways just enough that i can fold all the axis's flat and stow it away in a plastic protective case in one piece. Remove the two black bolts stow in case and go. A great time saver i think. The first feature i like about it, is its robustness. Painters poles are sturdy pieces of equipment by design. The 2nd feature important to me at least was it has a hexagon shaft extension. which mean i dont have to worry about cams or twist locks, like you find on tripod legs coming adrift or wearing out, they always seem to frustrate me. The minimum height is about 5 feet and i think i can extend it to about 9 feet. I'll have to find a tape measure tomorrow... With gimbal attached the camera is a little lower than my eyes and im nearly 6 feet tall. So i kinda feel like it should be a nice height if i am just holding it upright, time will tell. I have been out today scouting, My town has a bunch of murals painted on various walls all over town, probably most towns have similar. There's actually a path to follow on google if one wanted to search it out. I had the mission 1 in a pocket and the first thing i noticed is that the rubber sun shade can get dislodged pretty easy and intrude into the photo. This is from a burst mode, you know the 960 fps. Interestingly burst mode files sizes seem to come in at about 134 - 144 MB per batch. if you have a look at the two pics you can see the difference in light levels. Straight out of camera we have a jpg ( yes i know i should have shot raw ) i figured i would start with the defaults and see how that goes... These are like only a minute apart and there's not a cloud in the sky. Not that i find the look unpleasant, it is what it is. The mission1 also does a ton of processing after you stop recording, it continues processing for a few seconds. Again not an issue just things i have noticed. If i use the phrase gopro take a picture it will do whatever the mode is set to, however it seems a little finicky in its execution the timing doesn't always seem the same. Theres also a very good chance the error is operator induced, but i think it may be more consistent for me, if i buy a bluetooth remote to trigger it, specifically if your trying to do one man band 960 fps sequences. I have tried half a dozen slow motion things at home with out alot of success.

Nice images, was it overcast that day, they seem a little subdued ? or is that the lens combo you think ? A long way from the top is a good thing i reckon 🤔 Be careful with the at-x pro 28-70mm pro 2.8 there's 3 versions from memory. I forget how to tell which the "better" one is. Google would help no doubt. I also suspect the tokina 28-70 at-x pro's might be flying under the radar. I vaguely remember this lens getting a good rap and an almost cult like status in some video forums. Pentax forums is a handy place to visit... I must be cdo its like ocd but with the letters arranged alphabetically, like they should be 🙂 Would you believe i only just gave that lens a wipe over 😞. I also have had an ef-mft metabones xl speed booster 0.64 arrive. With my metabones the internal focus was way off and the internal element was free to rotate willy nilly. Completely the opposite to your speedbooster Kye. I suspect the screw that holds it tight is maybe either bent or stuck as i cant move it by hand. its also in the open position which allows the element to move freely. I also don't have a screwdriver that small either, so until one arrives, i have a temporary work around. The whole internal lens is losey goosey, i think theres about a half a millimeter of play. I know it seems like huge amount. However it really is quite loose, i can get a rattle out of it, if i shake it. Not sure if that is why it was up for sale, i suspect its been played with then sold when it became all to hard. I initially had the 17mm takumar mounted to it but i think in hindsight that probably wasn't helping, with the depth of field so i put the 50mm on it instead. I can wind the lens element almost all the way in and it becomes a tighter fit and i can get infinity focus ( i think ) i have to double check. No issues with mounting the 50mm on the metabones Here's a pic of the front of the metabones and back of the 50mm takumar. i used the 50mm as that measured the longest out of the measurements i took. There seems to be plenty of room between lens elements. I have the chipped ef mount on it and the back of the takumar barely protrudes, less than a millimeter i think, cant measure it as i tossed the digital calipers... it would be interesting to compare it to the back front of the viltrox. One interesting fact i picked up is that the Olympus em-10 ii and the em-1 iii do not like the ef adapter with the chip on it. The chip is supposed to tell the camera that its a 50 mm f1.4. I always figured some metadata would be nice even if it was wrong data at least i had a place to start. However the Olympus's simply refuse to start up, all i get is a grey screen. If i depress the lens lock mechanism and turn the adapter slightly ( and i presume ) the contacts no longer touch the the cameras will fire up and work. I have two other brands of camera and the chipped ef adapter works fine on them. I have no idea why i haven't noticed it before. The problem is tilting the camera in any direction indicates to the lens, it should try its best, to immediately fall off ( don't ask me how i know this )🙄