fuzzynormal

That stinks that it's misbehaving. Which video modes? I rented the OM1 last year and wasn't noticing anything weird. And, again, my lowly em10iii does fine. I did NOT use 60p C4k mode though on the rented OM1. What power is your reducer? Most are .7'ish, so you'd be around a 60mm equiv., but a difference of 5mm isn;t going to affect much.

FWIW, I recently did a post about the doc the wife and I are working on. Some of our production insights there. Examples are posted too, so you can judge if what we're talking about measures up to your standards. Not the first time we've done that either. Yeah, it's a gear site first and foremost, but other info floats around too.

Huh? Surely that can't be right? I use an EM10iii and can stabilize my old prime lenses as needed --and it does so quite well. It's a big reason why I bought it. Or are you writing in context to the 120 burst mode?

Yeah. Totally not depressing, that.

The soundimage.org guy has been posting here for over a decade! Lots of interesting and useful stuff there, btw.

The shots were so dense I literally couldn't get past it to concentrate on the story. Style over substance. Or, the style was most of the substance. Looked ridiculously good though, didn't it?

Might be a bit of survivor bias here. The older movies that were shot on film might seem to be of a nicer IQ standard, but those are the ones that are still acknowledged. As an dude that went to the local 1$ 'grindhouse' theater rather regularly as a kid, I assure you that the quality of the image for the forgettable films were often nothing remarkable. However, I will say that the darker, deeper, contrasty look that was in fashion among better cinematographers back then is something I miss. Less is more. Too much detail in a scene can be a detriment at times. All that dynamic range often is not needed. Spielberg's West Side Story looked remarkable and like shit simultaneously, imo.

FWIW, I have one. Got it used for $1,250 a year ago. Great IQ, but I just don't like using it for video. That cam's ergos fight me.

Thank you for taking the time to actually give the film a shot and devoting some of your time to it. It's actually a big ask to request someone's attention --and then have them do it; much less write out a critique. Believe me, it's super appreciated!

It's a work in progress, yes, so the feedback is appreciated. Your suggestions align with our thoughts as well, so the affirmation is encouraging. There were a few different storytelling tacts we considered. We ultimately decided to not deviate from their reality much and stay true. Our usual tendencies would have been to play up some of the challenges to heighten stakes, but their thing is actually rather modest and somewhat mellow, so (this edit for our locals anyway) is character study and a slow unfolding of their situation. We expect to ultimately make a short "TV" version where the tighter and conventional storytelling stuff is in play. So many different cameras were used simply because that's what we had on hand. Also, there was a perverse pleasure in knowing we were using a ridiculous mix of cameras and then trying to unify IQ in post. So much of what my wife shot was on an old Fuji XPro2. Which is kind of a really dumb thing to do if you know that camera. But oh well! I often used a Olympus EM10iii --with a 1970's 50mm on it. That's the camera that caught alot of the people shots. For the hawks, my severely banged up GH5 had a super cheap vintage Toyo 500mm lens and a 2x extender on it. That was the rig that caught the most bird footage. Rented some things along the way, but the timing of the rentals and nature didn't yield much. Having that old lens was the silliest thing ever for capturing clean nature shots, but there was a lot of fun in the challenge of trying to make it work. Manually trying to focus while panning at an effective 2000mm fov? That was difficult. I should have bought a real tripod, like a Sachtler, for trying to get birds in flight. Not doing that was a mistake. The Oly cam was the most doc friendly. Small, unobtrusive. Easy to use handheld kuz of the decent IS. Looked good most of the time. Trying to film on my Xiomi 12s Ultra was...meh. Got a few pretty shots on it, but missed so much while fiddling with the touch screen. No thanks. Not doing that anymore. Also, the phone's IS induces unwanted image jitter. Bleh. The phone camera can look really great. On par with the other cams in a way. Not a practical tool though. As for audio we just put 3 lav recorders on the main characters and let it rip. Typically 2 hours in the morning, 2 hours at night. x3 x60 days x2 years. No monitoring of the audio. We got what we got. Keeping impressionistic field notes helped when trying to find good phrases later. The standard grind of doc editing there, mitigated with the novel AI assist of transcribing. Every once in awhile we'd pull out a blimp/deadcat/shotgun thing and get some quick interviews, but only a handful. Finally, the days in the field were not really working shoots, per se. More like us hanging out with friends, so those numerous hours were not a problem whatsoever. Still, our rate card plus those hours would have kept the wife and I flush, but this is doc film making so that ain't happening. If we ever see a return on this I'd be amazed. Cheers!

Here in my small town, during half the year, we're actually doing screenings at the local performing arts center and trying to curate an interesting mix of films. Without that option, I'm not really able to make time often for an authentic cinema experience. After all, a 3 hour round trip drive is a big commitment; especially to watch a movie that may or may not be good. My reality is kind of frustrating for spontaneously catching a random movie at the theater. I sure miss that experience that was a huge part of my younger days. And, sure, I like to watch films at home, but nothing beats the communal experience of an engaged audience while watching a movie. https://www.borregospringsfilminstitute.org/

Anyone here specialize or enjoy documentaries? My wife and I made a doc for our small community and were wondering if it had any viability beyond in-town screenings at the local film fest. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gorqbss1yxq6lufl81x44/HAWK_WATCH_SCREEN_DRAFT.mp4?rlkey=x5d8vcd4igr3bix0cdsgajq0b&st=mt1xzunz&dl=0 The 1st draft here is still loosey-goosey, but if you're so inclined, take a look and see if the story intrigues you enough to say, "Yeah, you might be able to get this out there other places." We feel it's such niche topic that distribution isn't much of a reality, but maybe being niche is a positive in a certain way --and with a significant cut down it could have opportunities? Not sure. As one work on these things one gets rather myopic. As you might imagine, feedback from folks in our local community is too biased. They're just happy to see themselves, colleagues, and friends in a film. Any advice is welcome if you have time to watch.

FWIW, our latest doc used: GH5, GH4, iPhone, Xiaomi ultra 12s, Fuji X-pro2, Fuji XT5, Oly EM1mII, Oly EM10iii, DJI Mavic, GoPro, 5DII. Wanna guess which one shot the most? Which lenses were used? I can tell you, but, "eh." The film got made and it looks nice enough to us. Still, docs like ours have no shot at Sundance. The reason why it can not be considered for something like Sundance has nothing to do with equipment. If our latest doc had a better story at its core, then maybe... but it doesn't. It's just not that interesting or entertaining enough. With docs, my opinion is that you can shoot with anything that makes an image. If the story is awesome and rousing it'll get seen and lauded even if the technical quality is mediocre. Nice to have both great story AND IQ -- but story telling...camera can't only help so much in that regard, and that sort of help is really, well, not all that much anyway.

Let's hope in a larger context than cameras, yeah? The USA is a business plan more than it's a nation --and business isn't much about community. After all, once we're doing things for each other we aren't doing it for shareholders. I'd certainly rather see people congregate on-line in smaller less invasive digital places.

I've written that having any camera is "good enough" and video creatives should just go to work and make stuff? That wasn't really possible with the D90. Lord knows I tried. Totally f'ed up a shoot with Stan Lee trying to make that thing work. Ooops.