Axel

During the summer draught I stand on the bridge and bite my nails. Hoping nobody notices the bags in the shallow water of the Rhine containing those who disliked my favorite movies.

Oh this could be a movie, but adding a creepy note (no offence ;)). The script would be by Paul Schrader. It's this alienated projectionists that was living through the emotions in movies, but he starts to notice the emotion in his audience and gets kicks through it (emotional porn), after a while he needs bigger kicks and starts to follow people (for instance, someone he notices in the theater, who comes with his boyfriend, but then starts to come alone and cry,bla bla) on the streets and interfere with their lifes -directing/creating his own real life movies- ,etc...
Sort of a taxi driver, nightcrawler, the following movie

More evil comes from obeying than from doing ones own thing (as our countries' history illustrates). Emotions or thoughts expressed with genuine passion will also be appreciated by others. Doing what you think might be after everybody's fancy results in mediocrity. At best.
And: I don't see we are on 'that route'. The current crises on so many levels can't be solved by accepting practical constraints. We need more people who trust their own judgment (made with minds, hearts and souls) and who contradict the so-called common sense of their society. Again, our country provides the challenge right now. How can we sleep while our beds are burning?

I’ll admit it, I use camera forums a lot.  Too much, probably. I use them to check out the latest cameras and lenses and lights and accessories. I waste about two hours a day on them.  Time I could spend watching “the View.”
When I started out shooting part-time in 2005, I got a DVX100 because a juggler who was a featured extra on a tv show called “Sons of Saddam” told me to.  “Cause it does 24p.”  I didn’t know what that meant, but I plunked down $3,000 - all the money I had in savings on this camera.  
The camera could have been a bust.  But I did it because a juggler who played one of Saddam’s sons goons said so.  That’s how easily influenced I am.
Then I bought a HVX200, not even testing it first.  “Cause it can do HD.”   I bought the Redrock micro adapter because I watched the work of MacGreggor and some other DPs back then do stuff on a Gorilla 35 lens adapter that hadn’t even come out.  I hadn’t even tried it first.  Just sent in my credit card info.  
Rinse and repeat.
All these periods of time I bought things just based on videos I saw shot on them. No tests - I didn’t understand tests.  Just videos shot with them and the opinions of people I respected.  I could look at screen grabs but just scroll down to their opinions.
Well finally 11 years later, I am seeing what I was doing - buying based on people’s emotions.  Based on the emotions of people whose work I liked.
This is fine to do, but it’s not always the smartest thing to do.  
There are several, maybe twenty influential figures online in the cinematography world.  David Mullen, Shane Hurlbut, John Brawley, Art Adams, Geoff Boyle, and of course Andrew Reid, come to mind as leaders who people follow and listen to.
Even the opinions of the above people and the other influencers are, in the end, just their opinions.
When someone says, “this to me screams filmic” or “this looks digital” - again, that’s all an opinion.  If they say, “that grade is terrible” or “man you nailed the skin tones” - again, that’s all opinion.  Even looking at test charts and camera tests, the results are subjective.  Aesthetic is subjective.  There are scientific tests, but they lead to opinions.  This isn’t pure math - this is an art form.
There is no such thing as filmic.
Everything is digital.  Film emulsions see the world differently, but they go through a digital intermediate.  They become digital .  And I think that’s probably about 99.9% of all films shot on celluloid.  Maybe a few hipsters shoot film and use a steinbeck, but they still upload their results to vimeo, which converts this to a h.264 file.
I have very strong opinions, and a lot of people have very strong opinions.  That’s why we work in film.  It’s an art form that is full of passionate people.  But I also have low self-esteem.  My whole nature of existence is based on others approval.  I’m getting better at trusting my own self, but this is my basis.  
I think maybe most artists have low self-esteem or why would they want to share their art?  Is it ego?  Or the attempt for others to connect?  Yes that’s part of it.  But whether you want to admit it or not, we love when people love our work.  We live off the feedback, or why would we check vimeo 5 times a day to see if someone commented?  Why else would we have awards?  Especially in an art field where awards are just based on opinions of a community who may or may not get your work?
Something is beautiful if you think it is.  You don’t need an oscar in cinematography to be happy with your lighting or camera movement or angle, or have your opinion mean anything less if you aren’t in the ASC.  Everyone brings something unique to the art form.  Everyone brings a new perspective that is needed, especially now, when everything feels pretty much the same.  

Neat video is a great solution and the value for the money is impressive. Want some tips?
Any shoot that you fear dealing with noise - high ISOs or deep shadows - shoot a second or so of a flat surface, not overly dark or bright (no channels clipped. so avoid intense colors), the more it fills the frame the better. Defocus the lens so you're just shooting noise, and shoot it at the same ISO and WB as the shot. Slate your noise clips if necessary (but generally, if you have three takes followed by a clip that's a tiny file size, you'll know it's your noise clip). Or make a point of sticking a card in at the head or tail of a shot so your noise profile card is part of the clip. Use the noise clip to make the auto noise filtering profile and apply that. And try to save your profiles intelligently (IE, make a folder with camera name, and name the clips with ISO and WB, like --folder: NX1--> filne name: daylight-1600iso). I don't know how important WB is for fine-tuning noise, but since WB is adding gain to specific channels, it's probably key for accurate noise removal. And if you use custom WB you won't have an existing profile.
ALL OF THE ABOVE takes seconds (many shots have a good enough flat space, but NV likes a pretty good sized chunk, I think 128px square is the max??), and you can end up with a nice library for shots when you don't have a good solid to tune the noise filtering. NEAT VIDEO IS BETTER WHEN IT'S NOT GUESSING - give it a solid noise profile for the specific shot.
Try to render neat video only once; on some NLE timelines, you'll force a re-render if you tweak any setting like color or contrast or opacity. So do your edit, and then render out prores (or whatever) of your clips in the edit (add heads & tails for transitions if needed) with NV and re-import; color correct on top of those.
I just use neat video in After Effects; I'll ID the clips that need it, setup a project, create the noise profiles (some projects you might need only need one or two), add the effect, and hit "render" before I go to bed, leave for a meeting, whatever. Then you're done with it and your NLE will work with native - and noiseless - files.

That's not a real "solution." Sony still struggles so hard in mixed lighting. The canon looks amazing every time. 

I've thought about this too, but...even if people's monitors are uncalibrated it's all relative to the original color. They're used to seeing quality films/series/music videos in a certain "shift". When you calibrate your color correctly they'll associate the "look" as being correct. Just my theory.

Why wouldn't you buy a plugin? Neat Video certainly is the best, but it's not the cheapest. For just noisy shadows, Photon Pro (~ $30) can be sufficient, and it's faster in FCP X, because it has no alien GUI, it seems to have been made with Motion (one could build a lot of fast plugins for FCP X within Motion, but you'd need knowledge, experience and patience).
You are right about the precision (or lack of) of the colorboards of FCP X. On the other hand, crushing blacks won't help much. Many use Resolve as FCP X's color-app, where you have unlimited precision. But what really helps is to avoid the 'noise floor' during the shoot. Visible noise is low SNR.

No.
It's orange/teal grading, which by a popular philosophy optimizes the color contrast and heightens overall clarity of the image. Background is, that when you grade perfect and vivid skintones (which is really very easy with BM footage, as well in ProRes as in raw of course), turquois is the contrasting color, the opposite on the color wheel.
This can be done with GH4 and A7s as well, only that both (particularly the Sony) can't capture this range of skintones in the first place, so it will never look that good.

We are not on this earth to avoid suffering, we are here to wear ourselves out for the things we deem important (paraphrasing Kant). We shouldn't try to add more days to life but more life to the day (s.o. else). 
A friend of mine is always careful not to lose the clients' favor and makes too many compromises. With that behavior, I often told him (when again he complained about the stupidity of a demand), he had lost the clients' respect from the very start. It's like you said, a vicious cycle. If one thinks (he should better know) that he (or she of course) knows better, he should say so. Video is my domain, I am the one in charge. Make up your mind what you want to accomplish and leave the rest to me. I am not cheap, but if you want it cheap, get it done by your nephew (because those clients often seem to have a nephew with a DSLR).
Kubrick once said (see my motto) Either you care - or you don't. Like many of Kubricks cryptic one-liners, it's almost taoistic wisdom. There are things that are worth every effort, subjectively and personally. One should fight for them and never compromise or give up. Then there are other things, things that don't feel important or at least important enough to invest too much time in them. Or any time at all. Then one shouldn't care.

Suffering for one's art is one thing, suffering for work is another.
If any work conditions, imposed or self-imposed are making you unwell, physically or mentally - get out of that work....or re-evaluate and change. Chasing unrealistic deadlines, spreading yourself too thin and underbidding others to get work is exactly what feeds the vicious cycle.
The biggest investment as a freelancer is yourself, without being able to work efficiently due to poor health from too many hours or stress situations - is literally killing your own business. A production of any worth should never expect (or be legally allowed) to push consecutive hours that endanger the health of yourself or others - if they do, walk away. 
If you are on a non union/ indie project that requires excessive hours, tight deadlines and poor conditions - negotiate to get those conditions changed, or at least get heavily compensated with increased pay... if they don't, walk away. For every time somebody accepts work conditions that harms them, it sets the precedent that it is acceptable. If these unhealthy conditions are self imposed due to wanting/needing to secure work - make sure it becomes a rarity, not the default.
Suffering for your art on the other hand is completely fine. Set yourself on fire, take drugs, never sleep, cut yourself, drink yourself to death...whatever, It's all been done before. 
As long as you create art as good as Beethoven, Bowie, or Botticelli - I see no problem in having to suffer for it, if that is what it takes.
 

Evidence still seems to be the most reliable thing, DNA evidence in particular. Yet scientific experiments prove the opposite, because evidence is not so evident after being interpreted by he police. In staged scenarios, interpreted by real crime scene investigators the bias rate still was around 5%. Doesn't this count as reasonable doubt?
It's worse with confessions, especially if the suspects are family members. Subconscious guilt in conjunction with leading questions by interrogators who are prejudiced and psychologically poorly trained result in the, er, inception of wrong memories. Completely wrong in 15-20 % in tests. The suspects develop detailed plots of how they did it.
Witnesses shouldn't be allowed in court anymore. Of all people who were asked about specific facts of a staged crime they witnessed, first only those reports were counted that the witnesses were sure about. 80 % of them failed in the most important respects! The fragmentary memories of the unsure rest were more often correct, but only if recorded immediately afterwards.
Memory betrayes us. Everone states they knew exactly what they did when they first heard of 9-11. This turned out to be wrong too. People merge those connections to a coherent story, and those stories vary dependant on who asks them and how intense the interview gets. Details are left out or added. And if they were in a group at that time but interviewed seperately, the testimonies contradict each other.
Minority reports everywhere. And 'standpoints', but little else ...
 
 

No.
It's orange/teal grading, which by a popular philosophy optimizes the color contrast and heightens overall clarity of the image. Background is, that when you grade perfect and vivid skintones (which is really very easy with BM footage, as well in ProRes as in raw of course), turquois is the contrasting color, the opposite on the color wheel.
This can be done with GH4 and A7s as well, only that both (particularly the Sony) can't capture this range of skintones in the first place, so it will never look that good.

http://vimeo.com/152159680
For all the slow motion parts I used the RX100 mk4. For the 25fps parts I used a Canon 5D mk2 with prime lenses.

Hi Friends.
I have made this spec ad with a Sony A7s, Gopro 4 and Lumix LX100. Hope you enjoy it. 
 

A short sci-fi film I directed. Shot on BMCC + a lot of CG/vfx. Filmed in London, China, and Hong Kong.
 
any feedback welcome :-)

Project I shot on the Pocket Camera
 
*Disregard content (NSFW)
 
 

Unfortunately, this Avenger movie hardly features one pure recording. One that allowed to draw comparisons or conclusions. You can't tell where the Pocket was used and why. Unlike Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive. It was shot with Alexa and 5D. 5D obviously for the shots inside the cars.
However, having sold the Pocket (after 18 months of use, many hours of test shots, one ambitious doc and two weddings) and being back to prosumer video (I own no camera anymore, my buddy hates BM and has an FS7), I begin to see the virtues. The richness of colors is unrivaled in this price class.

I'm a huge fan of the bmpcc.  It's the ONLY camera that fulfilled the needs of my FORBES70 prototype camera in terms of DR, low light performance, resolution, compatibility with adapted specialist lenses, solid codecs, etc.   since the bmpcc's release there has yet to be anything that comes close to its overall performance when paired with fast modern c-mount lenses.
 
The sheer number of so-called high end cinematographers interested in FORBES70 but who disregard it based on that fact that the internal camera is a BMPCC is amazing.  Also those who complain about anything the camera does visually are asking far too much.  £800 for the best picture available from any camera in the price bracket where re-mortgaging isn't required to make a purchase.     
https://vimeo.com/136554487 password : fbs
 I hope the bmmcc does the same amazing job and better!

I enjoyed it, however, I'm finding myself getting less and less impressed with mega blockbusters, no matter how good the visual effects wizardry is. I think I'll put this down to desensitisation.
Most mega blockbusters have the same plot. Get a team of people together to beat evil, lose throughout the film, and win at the last second, just as everything blows up. Again. I find myself much preferring the Netflix Marvel series (Daredevil, Jessica Jones) above their mega big budget siblings. There's a lot more story and risk to enjoy. They feel more real. 
Despite my blockbuster grumblings, Star Wars Ep. 7 was very well done and it's great to see vulnerability in all the characters, and plenty of humour. Everyone sounds and looks ridiculous...probably my favourite thing about Star Wars.  
It makes the prequels look absolutely shockingly dire. 

This thread sums up my own observations. I do believe that too perfectly lit, framed and colored images can get in the way of the story. Did you see Netflix' The Killing, first two seasons? It's Seattle, and it's raining most of the time. The light is grey. Very often, particularly in long shots, the view is obstructed by sometimes unindentifiable foreground objects (or the said rain). I saw a book recently on an american photographer (forgot the name unfortunately, I thought it was Abel Leibner, something similar, but I got no hits on Google, does anyone know?). His photos also feature the main motif framed by a lot of obstructions, distortions or as faint reflections. Very interesting style, the opposite of Broadchurch season 2. You intentionally place distractions in the frame and let the viewer find the most interesting detail (which is the action of the characters always anyway).
In the first episode of Fargo season 2, I liked the photography, but it doesn't seem to be good style, because now I just see it as decorative, and it distracts me. Maybe though that only camera nerds like us notice these things ...

Found him: Saul Leiter.

You won the bet. 11 pages right now, and no hint of skepticism. A lot of brave loyality. And a stern warning for the haters:

All depends as well on the circumstances as on your own mindset and emotional disposition. If to connect to other people's emotions is what you really miss, you will find this easier. Or at least you imagine that it is. And then, no matter whether the empathy was real or not, MDMA is a medicine for you. You will always remember the experience as Love Is All You Need.
 Acting maybe quite accurate. But all just shown from the outside. If that was your goal, it's good.