mtheory

​Wolf, an F4 on S35 sensor will deliver less bokeh and easier focusing than F4 on full frame sensor ( due to difference lenses, obviously ). To match the same look on FF, you will have to go several stops above F5.6, which will require more light. As I said, cameras like A7S are beginning to make this a non-issue, but why would you throw away several stops of "free" light?

Agree, S35 is far from dead, primarily because it's still far more practical for cinema. This might start to change when ALL cameras have super low light abilities that can shoot at F8 at night without grain.

​Well, DoF isn't the only thing. Angle of view changes. People are used to seeing certain lenses "look" a certain way on Super 35. Kind of like how people are used to 24 fps in cinema. It's just part of the look.

I don't think that Super 35/APS-C will be going anytime soon. For photography, maybe, but for motion pictures it is by far the most developed format. It's the perfect equilibrium between sensor size, lens size and depth-of-field. And while full-frame does have a tremendous range of optics available, it doesn't have the specific range that's desired by professional filmmakers. Look at the Leica Summilux primes. From 16mm to 100mm, all super-fast at 1.4, all the same exact size and with an identical front diameter. The Master Primes go from 14mm to 135mm, all virtually the same size and weight, at 1.3. This is something that would be very difficult or impossible to replicate in full frame format. I've never seen a full frame lens wider than 20mm that's faster than T2. Ditto for a full frame lens longer than 85mm. And for people harping about depth-of-field, 1.4 on Super 35 is about equal to 2 on full frame. Hell, if you really got a hard-on for shallow depth-of-field, pick up the new Vantage Ones  at T1 for large-format style razor-thin DOF craziness. Either way, the options are there in Super 35.
And I haven't even gotten to all the other types of glass. An entire universe of zooms, macros, tilt-shift, periscope, vintage, anamorphic, and all other manner of specialty and custom glass. Spend ten minutes browsing the shelves of Panavision and see how much is available to you in Super 35.

I think the reason we spend so much time writing and obsessing about gear on forums is that there are actually two processes involved in getting better at the craft of making films. One is a technical process: how to achieve better shots, better sound, smoother motion, dynamic range, etc. This part is easy to talk about -- we often don't own the gear we're arguing about. And it's fun! The second process needed to improve is an artistic or aesthetic process. And it's more difficult to talk about because it derives from feelings rather than facts, taste rather than spec sheets. It's much easier to say 4k is better than 2k, and much more fraught to say that, gulp, Michael Mann is better than Oliver Stone, etc. And it's even more difficult to prove. 
Further, there remains some part of being an artist that requires you to walk off into the extremity of your experience and actually come back to people with something unique to say. Something touching or funny, and above all true.
 Years ago I wrote a series of posts on No Film School about the craft of directing, and have shot (directed) short films, a feature film, and numerous music videos and works for clients. It's not that people don't want to talk about directing or the craft of the art form itself, it's just that some part of that is personal. Maybe somewhere on the web there's a place where people launch into polemics against "fake Wes Anderson" style, or dolly-zoom shots, but I haven't found it. And the truth is it's hard​ to talk about one's artistic process, and even harder to hear someone tell you why it sucks. But point of view does leak out over time on a forum like this. That's why getting to know the various voices over a series of posts counts for something in the long run.
One of the longest threads on Reduser is called "shut up and shoot that Scarlet". But there's an even longer one with people posting pictures of their rigs. To reply to fuzzynormal's original post, no I don't need a new camera. But I always want one. And talking about it will do in the meantime.

Considering most still shoot with Super 35 mm sensors, that they strike the balance between DOF/ being impossible to focus, and I'm actually think of using the new Black Magic Micro Cinema camera as my A-camera if it lives up to spec, I have to pretty strongly disagree. FF is the future for photography, but not all video projects. 

​I actually happen to agree with this approach (being bold/frank). Yes, NFS has advertorials as articles, as do others actually: even DP Review with its oddball intro XC10 article and the follow-up puff-piece interview. AFAIK EOSHD was the only one going against the grain on a limb when the rest were kissing up (circa NAB  time, now there are more that have come around). Please stay this way, we need a bold and independent voice in this age of megacorps and fawning reviews. 

​I'd respectfully disagree, NFS is full of banners and "sponsored content" ( deceptive ads masking as articles. ), and while their 5-7 staff posts broader content, they don't have the balls to do frank, objective gear reviews and never will. Personally, I much prefer quality over quantity.

​To be fair, all I was saying is that you don't really need a new camera to do any of that stuff.  Not that you're wrong in the way you interpreted my ambiguous writing.  But craft and engineering are not the same thing, (tool use vs. tool ownership) which is kinda the thing I was getting at.
I sort of thought my question and call to action would be at the heart of the potential thread  --to list videos y'all have seen that were impressive but didn't rely on a great camera to accomplish.  I always love that sort of stuff and am attracted to it.  That didn't happen, which is okay.  But it's been fascinating to see what (and why) people got from my assertions.
I'm encouraged that folks here engaged about something a little broader regarding film making than the typical gear-centric talk.  I do think that's nice.  Y'all are a pretty enthusiastic bunch.

The original post, from the very beginning, suffered from fuzzy logic ( excuse the pun ). Fuzzy brought in examples of 2D and 3D animation, pointing to limits of cameras as filmmaking tools, essentially finding fault with this site for not being an animation resource. He then criticized the focus on technical achievement, while citing animation examples that required incredible technical skill to bring to life. ( If you think creating emotion through stick figures is low-fi you completely misunderstand how difficult it is to master natural pacing and timing in animation. These creators spent many years honing their 2D / 3D technical craft before being able to create their works. )
The logic of the original post was self-contradictory and incorrect from the very beginning.

Why are posts like these, and discussions like this even allowed on this Forum Andrew. I thought Admins had been appointed to helping sort things out. 
 
Could you please remove all the PMSing people and people suffering from ED here? We could do with some constructive discussions, rather allowing for whining and negativity.
 
Thank you.  

​
Fuzzy, you need to understand that unlike technical skills, creativity cannot be taught. ( Though I believe it can be nurtured by parents/teachers by not getting in its way ). This website helps those who already have the artistic part figured out and need to find the best tool to express it cinematically. Creativity itself comes from inspiration and life and imagination...you are disappointed because you expect a tutorial on how be creative. Sorry, kid, this part is fully your responsibility...maybe instead of pointing fingers and finding faults in others you should take a good close look at the mirror and ask yourself if perhaps that person is to blame for the emptiness and disappointment that you feel. Go out an experience life more deeply, you will eventually realize that YOU will have all the answers. 

Another interesting article
http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/facebooks-worst-nightmare-what-if-social
A marketer I listen to once analogized social to a vast, vast ocean, one foot deep.

To me it still works like a 'free social-media website for film lovers'. I do have a paid plus account though so I can upload higher quality. Not that I upload a lot, but I don't mind supporting the website in this way.
I've never paid to watch anything on Vimeo and I don't feel like I'm being pushed to. Still plenty of good stuff available for free. It's still the decision of the content creator to ask money for it or not. I don't see a problem with that.

Some very interesting ideas about discovery fatigue and content shock. I find that internet in 90s seemed to be of better quality...what I mean by that is that the actual technical barrier to content publishing kind of ensured that only the most dedicated, motivated, competent people got through and that resulted in content that was very good and engaging...now we are in the era of casual publishing...where the barrier of entry is so low that people are literally live-streaming their breakfasts and lunches...that is a problem...I don't know how it can be solved really...only corporations can really cut through the noise now, it seems.

Yes, the short vs. feature argument. I know it all to well. Back in the 70s and 80s directors made shorts to promote themselves, usually USC, or UCLA students who utilized their situation to develop a "calling card" short. In the 90s when I first became interested in filmmaking, it wasn't in fashion to make a short, or go to film school... You used that money to make a feature. Making any movie is hard work, akin to moving mountains... The thought process was why should I spend a crap load of money and time on a short, when I can spend a crap load of money and time on a feature. Remember El Mariachi was shot for 7000 bucks and that was shot on 16mm film. So, I think I am still in that mindset. But distribution channels have changed, so the short film has once again become a viable way to market yourself.

​No worries, mercer, I take my words back too. Try not to worry what other filmmakers think, by the way, all that matters in the end is you, your film and the audience. If you can shoot a feature and finish it yourself, then distributors at film festivals will be even more willing to talk to you.
 
 

You make short films until you have the resources to make larger films. You publicize and promote them at film festivals, always carrying a screenplay with you in case you meet a producer looking for a new talented director. Either that or you go purely through Internet, do crowdfunding and hope you get millions of youtube views to be noticed.
There is only one way to succeed. Use the the resources you have to impress maximum number of people with best work you can do. There was a time when even if you made your own film, you could only screen it to people physically, in a room, etc....now...you upload it once and if its good, it can reach millions. Filmmakers have NEVER had this option before. Ever.
 

​No worries, mercer, I take my words back too. Try not to worry what other filmmakers think, by the way, all that matters in the end is you, your film and the audience. If you can shoot a feature and finish it yourself, then distributors at film festivals will be even more willing to talk to you.
 
 

You make short films until you have the resources to make larger films. You publicize and promote them at film festivals, always carrying a screenplay with you in case you meet a producer looking for a new talented director. Either that or you go purely through Internet, do crowdfunding and hope you get millions of youtube views to be noticed.
There is only one way to succeed. Use the the resources you have to impress maximum number of people with best work you can do. There was a time when even if you made your own film, you could only screen it to people physically, in a room, etc....now...you upload it once and if its good, it can reach millions. Filmmakers have NEVER had this option before. Ever.
 

You make short films until you have the resources to make larger films. You publicize and promote them at film festivals, always carrying a screenplay with you in case you meet a producer looking for a new talented director. Either that or you go purely through Internet, do crowdfunding and hope you get millions of youtube views to be noticed.
There is only one way to succeed. Use the the resources you have to impress maximum number of people with best work you can do. There was a time when even if you made your own film, you could only screen it to people physically, in a room, etc....now...you upload it once and if its good, it can reach millions. Filmmakers have NEVER had this option before. Ever.
 

Must be my poor english. Mercer liked your posting, so I guess you didn't hurt him too much.
Too many cooks spoil the soup. What you are talking about is an industrial product, not a good film. And regarding VFX, it's accomplished on the backs of many (credits) underpaid modern slaves, who ruin their health sitting 14 hours a day in front of computers. The last film I saw in the cinema was Avengers - Age Of Ultron, and though it was somehow entertaining, it really was a big heap of shit. I never dreamed of making such a film myself (though at age 16, before having seen really good films, I dreamed of making car chases with lots of guns and explosions in James Bond style).
​Excellent check list. For a one-man-band (or a small crew of trusted enthusiasts), you had to delete some of them from the start to make the project manageable. The crucial part would be to leave the right ones on the list. Somewhere I read a wise line: Good, cheap, fast - pick any two.
On the short film Ascension (search on Vimeo), the filmmakers say (homepage >making of):
Let's start with some numbers: 5 students, 1 year and 2 months of production, 19 000 hours of work, 2 months of calculation on 20 computers, 11 000 final pictures, 4 To of storage and very few sleeping time.
Those are numbers that impress me.
​I'll try to, and I start by confessing what I have not achieved so far: pulling off something that I'm really proud of, capturing my dreams on film.
Am I alone? 
Well, if very many had succeeded, I'd expect to see more good short films around.
If I finally succeeded, I expect that instead of typing lengthy postings on how to succeed, I'd lean back and dream about the next project ;-)
EDIT: As I see it (and I am the TO), this isn't off topic. The software industry (not Quantel or Flame) must be careful to sell their products to us without risking their reputation of being 'pro' (whatever this is supposed to be, in our times). In the beginning of cinema there were the pioneers, and they found out how to entertain and astonish their audience in a playful way. Had they had one percent of the opportunities we have today, they would have happily exploited them without having to compare their work to any industrial standards. 

No, no, I don't mean fantastic plotlines like King Kong or time travel, I love em...my point is how HUMANS are increasingly handled in movies now...there is a tendency now to make every protagonist a superhero with superhero powers...even looking back at traditional larger-than-life characters like James Bond and Indiana Jones and even Rambo, they were exaggerated but ultimately they had human limits...

From a storytelling point of view...it's important for the element of danger to remain in the film for you to really be invested in the action...superhero films don't follow those rules...that is FINE, we expect Superman to fly....but why is Vin Diesel now able to defy the laws of gravity too with that final helicopter sequence?  I'm just noticing that the superhero genre is creeping into the mainstream action genre, maybe it's due to the popularity of Avengers, but its kind of spoiling the experience for me personally. 
 

​Agreed. I mean, take the runway scene in the previous one... I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh or cry it was so bad. Just... why?
I mean, I get it... take a Blade Runner. It's obviously not (meant to be) real according our understanding of what's real to us, but atleast it has rules applied to its own realm that aren't being broken. But just because something is a movie, doesn't mean I can throw away every rule that applies to reality, especially if the foundation is that it takes stage in ours. I'd rather like to being able to realate to it (yes, I just made that word up). So it's like you say, they started out in the real world, with real probable scenarios and now it's just some mumbo jumbo action with little regard to realism. Atleast The Avengers or Transformers created a world with a different set of rules and I do love me some dumb fast pacing and XPLOSIONZ!!1! movie once a while though.

Firstly, I think its your writing that's jumbled and unclear. Start with a central point first, then add sentences as supporting arguments. 
Secondly, my comment was not elitist. It's just that you are insecure about your skills and felt attacked personally when I explained the difference between putting a LUT and color grading. Using a LUT is like choosing a film stock...DOPs have been doing it for decades, it gives a specific look to the whole film....color grading is a further shot-by-shot adjustment of color and tone..its about deciding the look of each shot individually, guiding the eye within each shot, and colorists have been doing it for decades too.
These two processes are complementary to each other and are optional to every filmmaker. You do not NEED to color grade. You do not NEED to have a LUT either. You don't even NEED lights in your film if you can shoot in natural light, how you distribute your time and budget across a production is always your choice and really what filmmaking is all about.
In your case I'd also allocate some budget for emotional therapy before you step on the set though...