fuzzynormal

Sure, I'll give you a deep dive. I'll also vent a little. You might imagine there would be some worry matching footage, but for this project, surprisingly not really much of a big deal. We had worked with the Alexa footage for months, so I didn't fret at all that a GH5 would do the pick ups. Why? None of the Alexa footage was shot with a deep consideration for the lighting. It was all very workman-like. And the "eye" of the shooter was decent, but average. That's really the biggest thing. Anyway, the cinematographer and director decided to bring a rigged out Alexa to a run-and-gun-available-light shoot. The dudes are older gents and they just felt like "the best" camera was the logical tool to use. Not true, honestly, but you couldn't convince the cinematographer of that notion. Which is kind of a legacy mentality with older guys, but that's what happened. There was a political element here too. It's a decent budgeted doc so the "shot on ARRI" rhetoric was desired. Okay, so the main reason re-shoots were required: there weren't a lot of compelling shots that could juice the narrative. The footage was decent to look at, but not dynamic. The cinematographer really couldn't get around easy with this big 'ol rig and sticks. Interesting things would happen situationally with the characters, but he would unfortunately deliver a single shot when dozens were needed for a good edit. He'd just end up being burned out physically as the day went along and couldn't move into interesting places for useful footage. Ultimately, a big powerful camera was being underutilized because of "reasons". An Alexa camera delivers nice footage, of course, but when you're pointing it into blown out skies and shooting mid-day with it on the regular, it's not like it'll give you miraculous results. Here's the other rub that had me slapping my forehead, the cinematographer and the director really like the crushed blacks sort of color grade. And they didn't mind the whites being blown, so... That's a style that was typical a few decades ago, right? Well, you're taking a 14 stop Alexa, throwing away a ton of information, and delivering 9 stops for the final project? That's certainly a look. And Michael Mann loves it as well. But then, why the hell spend the $$ on an Alexa in the first place? Now, in this story you're getting a bunch of bias from a guy that spent my entire career as a one-man-band. If my background was from the more collaborative perspective of traditional filmmaking, I suppose a lot of this wouldn't even stick in my craw. Don't discount my naivete'. As for lenses, the cinematographer was using a very clinical variable. Ziess cinema Zoom 28 - 80 mm. And he liked f5.6. Great lens, but neutral character to it with how it was used, so when we went out for more footage I slapped my Olympus 12-40 on my GH5, packed a few ND's, and went with that. At the end of the day, it turned into an effective modest film. Could have been better, wasn't a disaster. imo, it was too verbose and that ends up being a slog, but all that talky stuff appeals to people that vibe on the themes of the film. And while the film doesn't stretch to get beyond that sort of thing, the director is happy with it, so all's well that ends well.

Here's an anecdote regarding our level: A-Cam was an Alexa Mini on a documentary shoot. The cinematographer didn't really get enough variety for the storytelling the director wanted. We tried to make it work in the edit booth. Couldn't do it. Late in the edit/production when the budget had been burned, the two of us went back into the field to get necessary pick-ups. Those pick ups ended up covering close to 1/3rd of the film. All the footage was cut together, color graded, and released on one of the major American TV networks. Every shot looks cohesive. That pickup stuff was done with my used, ebay purchased, 9 year old GH5. And there ain't no way anyone watching that film could readily tell the difference between the two. That said, anybody got one of those Alexa-Minis laying around they want to give me? I'll trade you my GH5.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1964095-REG/gopro_mission_1_pro_ils.html A "dumb" m43 mount on 1"? Honestly, from my perspective, it's a perfectly fine idea. If people out there don't understand why a dumb m43 mount is going onto a 1" sensor, those folks can just stick with GPro's fixed lens offerings.  For those that know how to utilize the tool, it'll be fine and even a bit more than adequate -- as the people that'll use this gear/mount aren't really fretting about AF or e-iris. The big thing here, I think, is that with adapters you can put anything on there now. FF to C-mount. Hell, go back decades and buy some of the lenses camera companies were putting on their NTSC video cams, if that would work.   Whatever.   That said, my speculation is that they're not even that interested in this camera doing anything special sales-wise in the marketplace. Most likely this iteration of their product is a loss leader put out there for bragging rights. Basically, like, "Look, our products are a serious cinematic tool now!" "Lenses!" "Prestigious-Lens-Brand-This!" "Prestigious-Lens-Brand-That!" The real value in that sort of BS, in this era of YT marketing, is more than worthwhile. As for sensor size, the best footage I ever filmed in my life was captured on 1" sensors. So, it's hard for me to by too concerned about a small'ish sensor -- as far as that ever matters anyway.

Yeah, just casually looking at flange distance, I was, like, "How's that work?" But those of us poors do hope that there are ways to outflank expenses, regardless of our ignorance. After all, the image of the Arriflex camera with a Nikon mount conversion is cool, as my go to lens is an old Nikkor 50mm that I put on my m43 gear all the time. Still, the more this 2C sits on the shelf and I look at it, the more I'm keen to really take a run at shooting a reel. Now, just have to write a worthwhile idea... And, in a neat wrinkle, I could use one of the oldest cameras with the newest film stock: https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/product/camera-films/verita-200d-5206-7206/

As an American I'd like to quote the immortal words, the best words, the POTUS has shared on this holiest of days, "Praise be to Allah" Seriously though, it would be wonderful if there were more folks truly (not just pretending) trying to live by the actual authentic philosophies of the New Testament. If only we could be so lucky. Happy Easter.

Yes. Which is why the debate might best be framed on a personal level and a philosophical one. Therein lies a certain simplicity, sure; a simplicity that can be fair, or not, to an individual. With all this capability the genie bottle has been opened and that bottle has been chucked far away into an open ocean. Hang out with the genie or go float with the bottle is how I look at it.

Same. As for the machines, an AI generating things just won't ever be legitimate craft to me, regardless of perceived value by those that end up engaging with it. This doesn't mean it can't be employed to make art. There's a ton of nuance and philosophy as to why there's a line here, at least in my mind. That is my hill to die on. I fully expect I will be in a shrinking minority in this regard. As for "A Gift For All Ages," here's a relevant anecdote: I thought about replacing the puppet with an AI generated cartoon. It's something like 6 shots. Pretty easy. To a layperson this would certainly elevate the perceived craft of the final film. They'd be, like, "A composite cartoon is in this goofy movie!?? Neat!" AI generated, or not, wouldn't enter into their consideration as long as it looked good. Doing AI for this wouldn't sit right with me, however, as it wouldn't be a human creating the images. Now, this cartoon idea absolutely would be derivative -- as it would be an homage to the classic MGM stuff Hanna Barbara did in "Anchors Away." So, a wholly unoriginal concept. But, for me, the respect I have for that craft just won't let me take the easy AI route. If I ever do replace the puppet with a cartoon it will be me learning how to mimic the look using Blender or hiring a true 2D animator to do it. That's a philosophical choice. Because ain't no one, really, outside of me, that would ultimately care. Or, hell, would probably even see the film, if I'm being honest. But I just can't do it. Can't use AI. Humans are inherently attracted to quality. And that quality needs to be a human creation to matter to me.

My buddy has a prime lens set for lend. Would this be possible:

I've been told it's a decent camera for indy films.

Let's keep the debate goin' ...Can't wait for the next great prompt artist to really bring their vision to the screen. No one prompts as well as that Vogel dude. That guy prompts. Why try to create a golden hour scene when you can just ask for it? Nothing says artistic cinema like a computer deriving and stealing other's hard work. :-| Should we go to an art museum to look at some lesser talent's paint-by-numbers? The creation matters. Now let's do motion pictures. Cinema has always been craft as well as the art. Minimize the craft, minimize the art.

Gotta find a retired old dude that's now an aspiring guitarist -- that used to work in production in the 90's and happens to be sitting on a closet full of short ends. Shouldn't be too hard, right?

This video is really cool. The density and scope of info is perfect for a neophyte.

35mm is daunting, but it's not my first time shooting film. It's been decades, but I've rolled 16mm before. I just think it's funny that I'm so frugal about modern digital gear, yet here I am seriously thinking about spending 200x more money to accomplish ... well, let's be totally honest, nothing of substantial IQ advantage! I mean, I bought a EM10III for $300 a few years ago, and that camera will shoot impressive 4K. I can't even get 1 minute of 35mm film shot and scanned for less than that. I'm very amused at how ridiculous this all is.

As a poor independent documentarian, we might need to have a talk about the word "affordable." This 35mm film stuff is the deep side of the motion picture pool and I really shouldn't be swimming in it!

Borisfx you say? Well, since this is a thread about editing, good spot to mention the old Media100. Anyone here know what I'm talking 'bout? That Boris guy was busy in the 1990's. Actually, if you want an old school editor, you can take a journey into the wayback machine and download his media100.com/ Along with the early and buggy versions of Premiere (you can't fault Adobe for staying true to their legacy), the M100 was the system on which a lot of early NLE adopters did corporate work. NTSC, baby! 1/3rd of a megapixel! And all of that plugged into a 68040 motorola Macintosh. BTW, similar chips are in my Amiga/Video Toaster, which I still have and still use it to play "Worms" on it as well as "Pinball Fantasies." My Amiga is right next to my Vectrex Video Game System that I got for Christmas as a 13 year old. Anyone here play Minestorm? Anyway, back to computers: the Video Toaster's NLE, "The Video Flyer," was the biggest POS to ever even try to call itself non-linear-editing. Their horrible attempt at it basically took a nail gun to the coffin of the company's, NewTek, earlier successes -- successes that started in the late 80's. Geeze-Louise, really going into the past now. [insert obligatory "Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk" joke here and also maybe the "Onion on my belt" Simpson's gag]

I guess I just need to figure out a worthwhile story to tell with 1.5 minutes of film.

Recently came into possession of this nice and functional 35mm 2C-BV ARRIFLEX. Before I eventually sell it I'm considering shooting a 200' roll to notch that experience; just to say "I done done that" 2 whole minutes of footage! What the hell. Ain't cheap, kind of financially stupid to do this sort of undertaking, but maybe ultimately worth the effort, I think? Anyone out there willing and able to offer advice regarding the lens situation with these old things?

There it is. Great point. One of the best features of modern NLE's

Well that was awesome.

Honestly, if you just re-made a version of FCP circa 1999, but it had good color control, I think that sort of NLE would have a chance at success. For me, and the way I work, I've found that all editing should be holistic and contextual to have a project emerge in a satisfying way. For instance, new-finagled tools like text-based editing with transcribed audio ends up being more of a time-suck than an effective technique. That might seem counter-intuitive, but for me the quick decisions that tool allows often leads to narrative dead-ends; I get cuts that "read well," but don't feel elegant -- so I ultimately end up not using those sorts of choices and going back to re-do stuff. I guess I'm saying there doesn't seem to be short cuts, pardon the pun, to a quality edit, so maybe just keep the NLE tool as elegant and simple as can be?

Personally, I like simple. These days I fret that features get in the way of artistry. Too often I focus on craft and don't invest enough in the art of it all. So maybe a basic tool is best? I don't know. I can tell you the best film I ever made was with FCP 7.

Has it been a good investment? You making money with it?

Well, there's one hell of a metaphor in the "context" of this.

While AI can be employed for positive or negative things, there's a bigger outlook at play for me. Robert Persig's famous musings are where I want to stand philosophically. His theories, and my limited understanding of them, are pretty much the reason why I ultimately view AI unfavorably.

We should hold theft in disdain. Not doing the stealing thing, after all, is one of the commandments in the Bible. I have a friend/colleague that has gone into the AI rabbit hole. He wants to only deliver videos with 100% generative AI. His argument is the hackneyed "It's just a tool". Well, a tool delivering mimicry from unauthorized sources is theft. "But humans copy each other all the time" he's said. Sorry, bud, you're just rationalizing stealing. Putting aside that human plagiarism is also theft, the process of being creatively influenced as a human is not the same thing. Humans filter all creative context through their own impressions, wisdom, experiences, empathy, and feelings. That particular matrix is infinite, random, and organic. The talented know how to tap into this mystic calculus, to develop their expertise, bend their skill set as a means to an end, and to use all of it to create something profound. Hacks (of which I am one, mind. Maybe a self-aware one, but still one nevertheless) can only regurgitate superficially. This lazy superficiality has now been globally scaled and monetized for the 1%. It sucks. Specifically, it sucks for me because those mediocre jobs of regurgitation used to be $$ in my pocket, not theirs. I had a skill of the craft that was worth a certain value. That value is diminished significantly. Yes, I'm bitter about it. Should I be? I may lack art, but at least I had craft. Be that as it may, my colleague's use of AI is especially galling as he's eager to brag at how hard it is to get the various AI systems he uses to comply with his prompts. Here's the thing: he's putting out animation style videos. Do you know how difficult it is to be a crafts-person creating animation? Good god. And he says he's "working hard" doing prompts? The "it's a tool argument," to me, is like going into a museum to admire and marvel at the paintings and sculptures ... but then standing in front of a 10th grader's paint-by-numbers knock-off of "The Harvest" and insisting it also deserves as much admiration as the original Van Gogh -- Or looking at some technical feat, like a 3D print of Michelangelo's David and being, like, "Wow, the person that ran the 3D printer equipment to make a copy of that sculpture is so great!" Bull. Shit. Admiring the craft needs to also be part of admiring the art. If my colleague is so addled that he doesn't even see repercussions of that craft-art-divorce, he's probably hopeless. Worse, he keeps trotting out his latest video examples in a gee-whiz-isn't-this-great-way to everyone around him -- as if we're supposed to be impressed? He's literally said, "I can finally make everything that's been in my head exactly how I see it!" "Make?" No, that ain't what's happening, not really. And the fact that he can't even recognize that he's not a "maker" is the real problem. People that are too shallow to cop to any of that, to appreciate what's being lost ... again, it's the deeper major problem with [waves arms around] all of this. I'm tired hoss. Tired of shaking my fist at the clouds.