Miraud

I know Monet, this is not Monet. And I have lived in Berlin, and it's an okay city but you don't become an artist because you move there. It's full of angry poor young people complaining about newcomers stealing their jobs. It's confusing me when you're putting pretentious prose and soft generic music in a test video for a lens and calling it filmmaking. There's no balls here, just filming people without them knowing usually from a distance. (Insert ironic smiley here to deflate any hurt feelings)

watching your films are like experiencing déjà vu over and over and over again. Seriously man? appropriate title could be "stock footage Berlin vol. 23"

j.f.r. who said anything about run and gun shoot? I have worked with Angenieux Optimo zooms and with arri/fujinon alura zooms and they are absolutely fantastic. But learning narrative filmmaking and cinematography - working with primes gives a much better understanding of field of view and when to use what. Physically moving closer or away instead of racking the zoom gives so much deeper knowledge that you later can put into action when you're on zoom lenses. Composition is not about cropping - agree? This kid is new in the game, and you're coming out as a total arrogant douche. No one cares about your experience if you're a bad artist. You come off as the kind of person you meet at a party who only says things everybody knows. And your comment on grain... yawn man. You never really made it, did you?

Exomonkeyman - do't listen to any of the bullshit coming from the wedding photographer. Those lenses are fine, and usable at t 1.5. Don't buy a zoom, working with primes makes you a better DOP. I have shot a bunch of stuff on the samyang lenses, paid stuff, shortfilms, documentaries - they are very good value, with focus gears, smooth aperture control and an ok built quality. Check this out my friend studying cinematography shot on those lenses and a black magic cinema camera:

​no I know, i've been to a seminar with him, his voice is an act he puts on.. and it's wonderful. But bad interpretations are always a mess to witness. like this one.

​Yeah that little scene was levels above the rest of the film. It felt like a snippet from a Roy Andersson or Ruben Östlund film. Very good indeed.

I'm genuinely intererested in the reply to that question, and of course, why you deliberately misread it and fail at being funny on the internet. Both those things.

No fuzzynormal - i the context of "why put a heavy look on a camera skintone test to obscure the results", why does that amuse you?

What do you mean - fuzzynormal?

​THIS!! Well done sir. Funny or not, it seems weird to apply a big fat look on the images making it impossible to do any real judgement. Theres like two colors in that palette, teal and orange. Which is the boring mainstream hollywood look. Which can be applied to anything from 35mm to iphone/gopro material. I just don't understand - why this in a camera skintone test? Don't put a look on a test?

​Waow. Just... wow. I don't get all the hate directed towards filmschools, except perhaps that most people in here didn't get in. Sure, you can make your way without it, but variety is good, right? I think the discussion gets too simplified - there's either Transformers 5 and Marvel films, or the one man band shooting random stuff in the street and see what he comes up with in edit. I absolutely agree with The Gifts of Chance as Jorgen Leth describes his approach to filmmaking, however that is not NOT having a plan, an idea of what you want in your film. I see these randomly shot films on vimeo all the time, and while some of them might look "polished" (instagram look), 9 out of 10, no 99 out of 100 has zero emotion, zero story, zero characters to connect to. Editing average framed shots, with too much "look" on the grade, to the music of your favourite band is as much filmmaking as any 99 out of 100 instagram accounts are art photograpy blogs. Nice film Ed, by the way.

Shot and directed it.