Shane Essary

Here's some broad generalizations, but it's how I see things:   My bottom line opinion is worry about the storytelling first, then fret about all the other junk.  The craft and gear will fall in line behind a great idea.  If you know the shots you want to create to tell a story, you can usually find a way to make even the cheapest camera/mic effectively capture it.      On the other hand, if you come at it from a mostly technical side don't expect compelling videos that will enchant a layperson viewer.   Walking around street shots of Berlin, London, or L.A. with a new camera is great for us here at this forum, or for people that are into gear-porn.  Heck I love to see what new tech offers too, but it's a snooze-fest for  a regular person that watches those types of videos. The technical side of the craft is fun, challenging, and exciting, but if you want to really be a filmmaker it's not what you put at the top of the priority list.   Real film makers aren't making movies for those of us that dig that stuff, they're telling stories to a much broader audience.   Try to build something like this:  http://tinyurl.com/kk23m4b   over building something like this:  http://tinyurl.com/kak87tc   ...and you'll be a step ahead of so many others in the low-end side of the biz that seems more concerned with buying things rather than making things.   Just about EVERYONE in the modern world can get access to gear that has the capability to make astounding images and tell great stories.  (They carry it around in their pocket and call it a smartphone)  I'd argue that the majority of people with this new affordable gear don't make great stories with astounding images.  So you really got to ask yourself ...which one of those people do you want to be?   I'm making a short right now with a used $200 GH1 and a $20 prime lens.  The image is ridiculously good.  I mean...it's nuts what I'm getting for less than $250.  Which is cool.  Great.  I'm not worried about the image.  I trust what I can get based on the quality of the gear and the skills I've acquired.  At this point what I worry about is the story I'm trying to tell.  Is what I have my characters doing interesting to the viewer?  Do my frame compositions covey the proper emotion that helps support my story?   Having a Sony lowlight camera or Panasonic 4K doesn't mean squat if you don't do anything interesting with that capability.   My advice about gear and kit:  Don't worry about your gear and kit.  Get what works well enough and then use it.  That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.

Without oweing having one myself, I would suggest the you look at your shutter angel, if it is too high it will look jittery I think.. 

Erm, just a heads up:  While I know people do edit on Macbook Airs, I'd seriously consider a Macbook Pro with an nVidia GPU if you spend plenty of time in FCPX.  For one-offs with simple editing, etc, the MBA will be okay, but why make life difficult?  :)

Just wanted to chime in:  still using my GH2.  Was itching to upgrade, but I like what I'm getting out of the GH2 + Driftwood Quantum X and I know I'm only touching the surface of what it can do.  Inspired by the Kendy Ty material, I've decided to just shoot everything using one lens (25mm Voigtlander) as a challenge to myself and I think it's working great.  I did find a situation where I wish I had a wider lens last week on a shoot, but I made it work via a little contortionism.  :)  

I'd love a BMPCC and I'd certainly use one if given one, but my money right now would be better spent on a better video editing rig since my current laptop continues to overheat when doing anything intensive.  

As I see it, this thread is not about BM vs. Panasonic. For my part, I have no income with what I do, for the odd wedding I shoot I just ask for a piece of equipment as compensation. I had a GH2 for over two years, it was hyped everywhere, not least at EOSHD, and rightly so, because for me it turned out to be 'THE ONE' (title of a BMPCC short EOSHD-member Frank Glencairn shot when the camera had no RAW yet). My thumbnail still shows the GH2 with my self-built pistol grip.
 
So when I finally decided to jump to BM, I was aware that the comparatively low price of the Pocket was deceiving, and I figured I needed a lot of trial-and-error and frustration tolerance. I just didn't expect how much.
 
I can't allow myself to follow the obsolescence cycles of the industry, making every new camera a one night stand. A daunting example of where this can lead you is my video buddy who at least buys two new cameras a year, always praising their strenghts and soon becoming disappointed by their weaknesses. 
 
Once you have invested time and money and dedicated yourself, it's hard to read, well, you're no longer up to date. You can feel hurt. 
 
Judging from the clips we saw so far, the GH4 is a winner in almost every respect. Can't get my friend to buy one, because he thinks he can't show up with a Lumix on a professional set, took quite some time to convince him to try 5D M3 with MagicLantern RAW (which proved, btw, that one needs to have the same patience to make it work to ones expectations).
 
4k is about resolution. In this respect, the BMPCC (and also the BMCC) is tricky, to put it mildly a hundredfold. You'd be well advised not to try and show off high resolution but instead to find out the limits. 
 
On the other hand I begin mistrusting the obvious virtues of cameras, be they dynamic range and 'gradability' or high resolution. Have you noticed that almost every BM or ML-RAW clip on the net looks like some aged slide from the sixties? Have you further noticed that the best looking skintones (in the 8-bit version we see on Youtube or Vimeo), after serious CC work match (but rarely surpass) EOS skintones?
 
The sole feature of the GH4 (since it's not a noteworthy better crop factor or nicer colors) right now favors blossoms and bees. We are going to see better images with the GH4 once their owners manage to overcome the obvious virtue.
 
Everyone stay loyal to his camera of choice, in good times and bad times, until it's time to part. 

As you know the Russain lenses aren't perfect, but that's what gives them their character. And yes, you get [some of] that character back with this type of cheap speedbooster simply because you have a reduced crop factor - its still m43 size, but its better than S16 in terms of how much of the lens is used.
For video they are perfect & i'm not an anal pixel peeper, so i haven't even bothered trying to see if they are soft at the edges. They probably are a little bit, but i don't care as the images look lovely & no one ever looks at the edges of a shot/screen anyhow.

Not necessarily as I seriously doubt Google has contacted each and every band out there, but rather the publishers that represent them.  For example, my band goes through various distributors, including but not limited to CD Baby.  Since CD Baby acts as our publisher, they only have to work with CD Baby since we agreed to let CD Baby handle that aspect of those particular releases.  CD Baby has something like 3-4 million tracks in their catalog with the same agreements.  Tunecore has a similar number and agreement, and The Orchard has probably even more.  Between those 3 catalogs, that's well over 10 million tracks right there (disclaimer:  I'm a software dev for a digital music service and I'm directly involved with the ingestion of those catalogs).  A huge chunk of the rest of the indie bands come through labels that are under the Merlin agreement, who handles reporting and publishing for those.  

Chances are, the indie bands themselves aren't even involved in this discussion and it wouldnt' surprise me if the vast majority are even aware of what's going on.  They just want to create music and collect their non-existent royalty checks.

That's shit, though.  Part of the reason I got into filmmaking is so I can make videos for my band without having to worry about some flakey videographer/filmmaker (and I'm shooting one tonight and another in the morning).
 
I want to make music, not promote.  I want to perform, not worry about distribution.  I want to get in the van and ride to bumfuck Indiana so I can play in front of 8 people for no money, because it's what I enjoy doing, not play phone tag with the venue or two dudes putting on the show with a couple local bands that no one locally cares about.  Same thing with films, right?  Do you want to make films, or do you want to spend all your time trying to sell them?  It's like that dude with the script.  He's so busy trying to sell it, he forgets to write another one.

If your band is already well-established, like trent reznor, for example, going the full monty direct distribution route is feasible.  If you're joe blow just trying to make it, having a good label behind you can be the difference between going "somewhere" or just spinning your wheels.  There's an art to it.  

From a consumer perspective, I like labels because they curate their music collection.  I can be assured that music coming from a specific label, while I'm not guaranteed to like it, at least is in the general ballpark of the stuff I do like.  That's the value of the label to me as a consumer:  They listen to 10,000 shitty bands and pick out the couple that have potential, so I don't have to.  
 
From a band perspective, the label gives us good/reliable contacts in other towns to help set up shows.  They handle the pressing and distribution of the recorded product and I don't have to have 100 boxes of 7" records laying around my tiny apartment.   The label sends out the records to the various fanzines and college radio stations, and all we had to do was get in the van and drive.  We sold a lot of merch, but with gas at $4.50/gallon, that was a break-even proposition.  

I don't know what the actual answer is other than to try and weather the storm and see how it shakes out on the other side, but direct distribution isn't the 100% answer 100% of the time.
 
EDIT:  I will add that we also don't pay to record our music because our singer is an audio engineer in his day job (I'm a software dev).  He has a nice recording studio built in his backyard, but that wasn't free to build or maintain.  It doesn't cost the band anything to record, but it's far from free and is typically subsidized by charging other bands to record there, as well.

That's shit, though.  Part of the reason I got into filmmaking is so I can make videos for my band without having to worry about some flakey videographer/filmmaker (and I'm shooting one tonight and another in the morning).
 
I want to make music, not promote.  I want to perform, not worry about distribution.  I want to get in the van and ride to bumfuck Indiana so I can play in front of 8 people for no money, because it's what I enjoy doing, not play phone tag with the venue or two dudes putting on the show with a couple local bands that no one locally cares about.  Same thing with films, right?  Do you want to make films, or do you want to spend all your time trying to sell them?  It's like that dude with the script.  He's so busy trying to sell it, he forgets to write another one.

If your band is already well-established, like trent reznor, for example, going the full monty direct distribution route is feasible.  If you're joe blow just trying to make it, having a good label behind you can be the difference between going "somewhere" or just spinning your wheels.  There's an art to it.  

From a consumer perspective, I like labels because they curate their music collection.  I can be assured that music coming from a specific label, while I'm not guaranteed to like it, at least is in the general ballpark of the stuff I do like.  That's the value of the label to me as a consumer:  They listen to 10,000 shitty bands and pick out the couple that have potential, so I don't have to.  
 
From a band perspective, the label gives us good/reliable contacts in other towns to help set up shows.  They handle the pressing and distribution of the recorded product and I don't have to have 100 boxes of 7" records laying around my tiny apartment.   The label sends out the records to the various fanzines and college radio stations, and all we had to do was get in the van and drive.  We sold a lot of merch, but with gas at $4.50/gallon, that was a break-even proposition.  

I don't know what the actual answer is other than to try and weather the storm and see how it shakes out on the other side, but direct distribution isn't the 100% answer 100% of the time.
 
EDIT:  I will add that we also don't pay to record our music because our singer is an audio engineer in his day job (I'm a software dev).  He has a nice recording studio built in his backyard, but that wasn't free to build or maintain.  It doesn't cost the band anything to record, but it's far from free and is typically subsidized by charging other bands to record there, as well.

That's shit, though.  Part of the reason I got into filmmaking is so I can make videos for my band without having to worry about some flakey videographer/filmmaker (and I'm shooting one tonight and another in the morning).
 
I want to make music, not promote.  I want to perform, not worry about distribution.  I want to get in the van and ride to bumfuck Indiana so I can play in front of 8 people for no money, because it's what I enjoy doing, not play phone tag with the venue or two dudes putting on the show with a couple local bands that no one locally cares about.  Same thing with films, right?  Do you want to make films, or do you want to spend all your time trying to sell them?  It's like that dude with the script.  He's so busy trying to sell it, he forgets to write another one.

If your band is already well-established, like trent reznor, for example, going the full monty direct distribution route is feasible.  If you're joe blow just trying to make it, having a good label behind you can be the difference between going "somewhere" or just spinning your wheels.  There's an art to it.  

From a consumer perspective, I like labels because they curate their music collection.  I can be assured that music coming from a specific label, while I'm not guaranteed to like it, at least is in the general ballpark of the stuff I do like.  That's the value of the label to me as a consumer:  They listen to 10,000 shitty bands and pick out the couple that have potential, so I don't have to.  
 
From a band perspective, the label gives us good/reliable contacts in other towns to help set up shows.  They handle the pressing and distribution of the recorded product and I don't have to have 100 boxes of 7" records laying around my tiny apartment.   The label sends out the records to the various fanzines and college radio stations, and all we had to do was get in the van and drive.  We sold a lot of merch, but with gas at $4.50/gallon, that was a break-even proposition.  

I don't know what the actual answer is other than to try and weather the storm and see how it shakes out on the other side, but direct distribution isn't the 100% answer 100% of the time.
 
EDIT:  I will add that we also don't pay to record our music because our singer is an audio engineer in his day job (I'm a software dev).  He has a nice recording studio built in his backyard, but that wasn't free to build or maintain.  It doesn't cost the band anything to record, but it's far from free and is typically subsidized by charging other bands to record there, as well.

This movie looked like another POS summer blockbuster after seeing the trailer. Once I saw 93% on rotten tomatoes it got me interested. It ended up being one of the best movies Ive seen this year.

Better camera i guess, but it doesn't look as good to me. 

The better camera doesnt improve his filmaking. His filmaking ability was always there. It just enables him to get even nicer shots :)

The directors comment on his choice of D.P. Dion Beebe (Memoirs of a Geisha):
 
"I didn’t want it to look like one of those plastic-looking video-game movies that Hollywood loves to release over the summer. I wanted to set it apart from the pack and Dion’s style is far more evocative of the classic war movies that I love".
 
POST: Did you shoot film or digital? LIMAN: “Film, which was very exciting for me as I wasn’t sure I’d ever get that chance again.†  http://www.postmagazine.com/Publications/Post-Magazine/2014/June-1-2014/Directors-Chair-Doug-Liman-Edge-of-Tomorrow.aspx

Bit the bullet and finally just bought a used Voigtlander Nokton 25mm.  I've really liked renting it in the past and found one at a decent price.  I thought hard about the SLR Magic version, but I keep reading they're hit or miss on QA and I really don't have the patience shipping things back and forth in case I get the bad penny.  At least there's a local Voigtlander dealer I can work with. 

Obviously, he sold his soul to Satan to get such amazing work out of such limited resources!   :D
 
From reading more, it appears he's not even using the Magic Lantern hack except to help him handle audio, is this correct?  Wow.

Obviously, he sold his soul to Satan to get such amazing work out of such limited resources!   :D
 
From reading more, it appears he's not even using the Magic Lantern hack except to help him handle audio, is this correct?  Wow.

Also, a little on the lighter side (synthpop/electropop?), try Future Islands:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vI_kx4J8Vc

If you can find a use for garage-punk, my band, The Angel Sluts, would be down for this.  We have one video already.  If you like a more post-punky sound, The Switchblade Kid would probably be okay with it (singer of my band is the frontman for that band is always looking for more exposure) although he's already made videos for a lot of his material.
Angel Sluts (shot (poorly) on a GH2 + driftwood quantum b hack):

Switchblade Kid:

If its only 9 stops of DR, then that sure is a big & robust 9 stops!
I've used RAW & ProRes Film/Video modes - they are all a dream (well RAW is an extra hassle I can live without).
Even if it turns out that it really is only 9, the pocket just shits all over the majority of DSLRs or anything else close to its price range for that matter when it comes to image.
The way you can push the footage in any direction is simply amazing - i've been doing some test CC/Grades all day for a doc i've nearly finished shooting & whatever i want to do, i can do.
 
You just can't get hung up on this type of nit picking stuff!
Its a damn nice Cinema Camera in a ridiculously small package, which produces some of the best images i've seen in a long while.
 
Everytime i use it i just chuckle to myself about the nonsense spewed by all the detractors.
Can't use it, won't use - who gives a fuck!

The mir is a kiev mount lens. You just need to get the kiev 16u - mft adapter off ebay.

I have!

http://youtu.be/2NYmNkye3dI

In the video I used all my Russian arsenal:
 
- Kinor 16OPF-12-1 (10-100 zoom) - Metor 5-1 (17-69 zoom) - Mir11-M (12mm) - Vega7-1 (20mm) - Tair-41M (50mm)

The opening shot and a few more was shot with the kinor zoom. Mines reads "2.9" on the ring as the fastest aperture, but I've seen other units with "2.8" on them. I presume that is the T number rather than the F, maybe? Of course, the lens says "2.5" on the barrel, so I think it is still f2.5. Wide open is quite "bloomy", the highlight bloom quite a lot.

Anybody else using Kinors on the pocket?

And a bag of sd cards. I don't think this is a very practical camera for your use.
 
http://vimeo.com/72909876

Well I hope everyone is creatively fulfilled. And my recommendation for that is...drumroll please...
 
Shoot with what you have. Quit buying stuff. Borrow or rent as needed.
 
I think if you're a creative genius but under-equipped people will see through the limits of your equipment and solve those problems for you.
 
It doesn't matter if you're poor...it does matter if you have no talent or can't bring yourself to use and develop what you have. If you are suffering from Gear Acquisition Syndrome you will never, I promise, never be satisfied enough with your equipment to decide now you are finally ready to be seen and judged.
 
Go ahead and be seen and judged with whatever's at hand. Get used to it. Thicken that skin. See how lame you are...not your camera, but you as a creative artist...and fix that. The camera is the easiest thing to fix. Your mental blocks and your inexperience making art are the things that need to be fixed.
 
If someone came to me and said they want to be a filmmaker I would hand them an RX100 with a small pistol grip and a removable ND filter and tell them to go out and make something. Go ahead and use the auto everything mode if they want. Or they could use an iPhone and a $13 collapsible 5-color reflector. And by stripping away all other concerns they would be trained to focus on what matters in art, and be able to do the maximum number of iterations per year creating things, because they weren't wasting time transcoding crap in Resolve.
 
No one in the audience cares about your camera. Boo hoo. Fellow camera enthusiasts are not a meaningful audience. Pick something easy and use it. A lot.

Modern video games bore me to tears, well 90% of them any way. Journey was good.