fuzzynormal

You made it through an entire decade here. Impressive!

Yeah, small unassuming kit and crew can be much more productive than the opposite when doing doc production. I can bear witness to this. Anyone else willing to testify? As for me, if someone told me a GH2 was all I had to make something, I'd shrug and do fine with it. I've done it before. Moreover, it would be fun and nimble. Okay by me. Yeah, I'm kind of done with fretting about perfect colors and resolution when it's much more important to get decent well shot coverage. I swear to god, I wish I had footage off a GH-ONE in the hands of a competent shooter for this current doc edit I'm doing --rather than the piles of sloppy handheld crap from an ARRI "cinematographer" that I'm trying to stitch together. Oooooooo, your pile of shit footage in my edit bins has more dynamic range? You got to play with a bunch of neat-o gear in the field for a year? Hooray, you used a jib. You had a portable video village? A PA? You broke out the steady cam? Your prime lens package cost more than my car? La dee daa. All your footage sucks and doesn't cut together. Great. (just spent the day in the editing room)

The BBC exists in a different production and financial context than independent documentaries. Even there, if the option was to capture something on a GH2, or not get it at all, they'd choose the GH2. Lucky for them, they don't have to worry about that.

Yeah, depends on what you really want to accomplish. I'm a doc guy so my first thought is: capture it or it didn't happen. Without story, well, what are you looking at? At least that's my tact. If rez or skin tones are less than optimum, I'll cope with it later, but at least I got it.

I just watched Inland Empire. Now what?

Best I can do is a silver jumpsuit.

I'm in agreement! The irony is that I basically did exactly what you say "wouldn't have worked" 25 years ago. Betacam SX camcorder ops with torn rotator cuffs unite! My career back then was filming tourism video around the world using big 'ol NTSC camcorders, large ANTON batteries, and a massive tri-pod.

One thing about these YT'ers and their marketing, they are actually offering looks at interesting imaging products, which does make things a bit of grey line in some legitimate film production. For instance, I just convinced a neophyte documentarian I'm working with to stop invading the space of his subjects with his "A Crew" Which is him, his cinematographer with a RED and all the rigging gak-gak that goes with it, a sound guy with boom pole and harnessed multi-mixer, an RF video village, and assistant producer. Trying to parachute in and get useful naturalistic footage of a person ON A HALF DAY SHOOT with that nonsense? C'mon. By the time they're in and out they maybe put in the can only about 30 minutes of footage, it's all stagey as hell, and if there's 10 seconds that's compelling it's a minor miracle...they got lucky with what the subject's personality delivered, not with the process of their craft. RED gear and crews are built for certain situations. Docs of a certain type? I say nope. No, just allow a savvy and talented 1 man band w/a mirrorless to go into the situation and keep it chill. Trade the marginally and slightly more advanced IQ for BETTER F'IN FOOTAGE. If an image looks better, but is inauthentic, what have you accomplished? Not much. The easiest path to some sort of normalcy in cinema veriti doc filming is to do one's best to mitigate the disruption of that normalcy. Boys and their toys. Always thinking that more is better.

What's better for you in general? Playing with gear or actually making motion picture stories with gear? Personally, I don't fault either. I'm more the former if I'm being honest. If you're tech head and like get excited about that, go for it. If you're a true creative and that's your priority, that's fine too. I have my biases about online freelance marketers, but a few of them seem to have eventually evolved into trying to be real filmmakers and left the influencer game behind. Curious about your perspective.

All hobbies are like this.

TL/DR: Old man+lawn+upset. Funny to me that this video is considered a "spill the beans" kind of deal. The information super highway has become what it was always destined to become. It's novelty gave it value. It's coasted on the early-year-legacy when it was a bit of a legitimate gathering space and access was a bit difficult. Even then, late 80's early 90's, I was interviewing corporate folks that were manipulating content. With the advent of Mozilla and Netscape they really began to realize the scale potential of things. Data tracking was a goldrush and they knew they'd be in front of the zeitgeist of citizen's respect of privacy. Yeah, privacy used to be a thing. People valued it. Anyway, as we all know, but seldom really grok the extent, we are the product. If you can segregate from Web 2.0 or find safe spaces, like this one, then you can remain slightly objective. But it's pretty hard. In this world right now the 99% of us are just things to be exploited. I mean, we were back in pre-80's as well, but there was a useful skepticism to marketing, it wasn't AS insidious, and it was a lot easier to avoid. I keep expecting a backlash and a shift in culture to forgo this intrusion into life, but then I look around and just end up typing ellipses ...

I've done this for our film festival screeners. 6 or 7 movies in a block? Put 'em on a single 60p timeline. The tech from the submissions are all over the map and it's best to rise above it all. Let it look as the filmmaker has made it.

I always wondered if this film was a ploy by the energy industry to keep legacy fuel sources economically viable and knock fission out of the market. Hard to think about those things with my tinfoil hat on, but I do try.

Well, I dislike HFR as much as the next guy, but the reason he's abandoning it is because of the ecosystemic/economic context within the movie industry which doesn't want to take visual risks with their production investment, not because Ang personally doesn't like HFR. Aside from that, never been sure why he's enamored with the look. I've read his rationale, but it still doesn't jibe. HFR pulls movies way too close to visual "reality" and narrative film are stories. Make 'em ups. Pretend. The nature of 24p's look is a huge asset.

4k acquisition, 1080 delivery. Save for a few slowmo 240fps shots that require 1080 resolution, it's all 4k 24p. BTW, I had the GX85 for a stretch. Liked it okay. However, my favorite LUMIX camera is/was the GX7.