Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by fuzzynormal

  1. Played with LUMIX S5II a bit at our local film festival.  The guys from the San Diego camera shop, Nelson Camera, came to the event and showcased their gear with one of the LUMIX ambassadors.

    Anyone in SoCal?  I'd recommend visiting those guys as they're really adopting the video aspect of cameras these days.  They got loads of stuff for sale and rent, btw, and are leaning into the indy film scene.

    Hard not to drool over what LUMIX has got going on once you have this new kit in your hands.

    Funny, 'cause meanwhile the film festival itself was running around with GH1's taking a bunch of stills and video with those cameras...

  2. On 1/8/2023 at 9:21 PM, kaylee said:

    i like your heavy film grain treatment, translated p well on vimeo (?)

    thoughts on this/how you did it?

    Massive data rate file that was uploaded in 4K, so that helps.  Seems to have maintained a lot of the detail.  I uploaded an .mp4 file.

    We used the Universe plugin from Red Giant for the dust and the jumpy gate weave.  "Misfire" was the effect setting.  I think maybe those film damage effects subtly popping up as things go along helps with the look.  Black dust and very subtle splotching are there, but not too obvious.  We didn't want it to look like a reel that had been on the road for months,  suffering all that accumulating spooling damage, but what you would potentially see as the first pristine print at a premiere, you know?

    The 'tight' gate weave keeps the frame hopping left to right just a little also, which I think looks cool. 

    BTW, the plugin is too flaky.  Can't recommend Maxtor stuff based of this particular effect.  The effect is nice and this one did the job, but it wasn't reliable.  Crashed my system a lot.

    Also used FilmConvertNitrate for the B&W stock film look and underlying film grain. "IL FN P4" for those of you that have that plugin.  

  3. Maybe it's just me and my background as a doc guy, but you're being incredibly particular there as the two shots are pretty similar.  Your shadows are only slightly more defined from one to the next.

    If you're looking to be a wildly accomplished and precise gaffer and you are OCD by nature, I suppose you could be this discriminating, but even then?  Debatable.  In fact, it might be a liability on set, depending on the production you're doing. 

    Personally, if I had crew fretting about lighting issues and THIS was the thing they were worried about, I'd be, like, yeah, I'm not going to be able to work with anyone that precious ... I don't know ... ain't too many narratives I've ever done wherein I'd be upset about this technical result if t was the look I wanted.

    I'd be much more worried about the storytelling, the acting.  Heck, even the craft services table (seriously, gotta keep the crew happy) than this lighting difference.

  4. 5 hours ago, MrSMW said:

    the lowest considerations.

    Ha!  I ain't gonna lie.  

    I bought a GX7 back in the day because it was silver and looked like a rangefinder.  The specs matched most other cams in that range, so what it looked like was the thumb on the scale for me.  Funnily enough, that damn thing had the best out-of-the-box-IQ of any LUMIX camera I owned before or since.

    Then I lost it.  [Sad face]

  5. 2 hours ago, SMGJohn said:

    actors should be more theatrical in their performance and scream their lines

    Yeah, we really thought about doing that old fashioned "Continental" accent, but the director wanted more of a modern delivery once she saw what we were getting during rehearsal.

    Thanks for the positive feedabck on the dolly moves.  Not a lot of folks mention that.  Kinda wish I'd gone even more aggressive with it in hindsight, but that's all part of the fun.

  6. 3 hours ago, kye said:

    WeChat is kind of like Twitter + Facebook + Instagram + SMS + Apple Messages + Skype + YT + ApplePay / your credit card / cash + Uber + Uber Eats + lots of things

    Thanks for the warning.

    Like I said, because of nonsense like this I'm ready to let modern culture turn the page on me.  I'm willing and able to be a footnote.

  7. I honestly have never heard of WeChat.  I'll brag about that.  (I think?)

    Oh, wait, I just googled it.  Yeah, it's that messaging app that's popular in Europe.  Yes.  I remember that it came preinstalled on my Nokia-6300-mostly-dumb-phone.

    Let me tell you, seriously, there's some liberation knowing that one has gotten older than the cultural zeitgeist --and it doesn't really affect them anymore.  FOMO?  That desire has been snuffed.

    It's kind of nice, this bubble of ignorance.  I can see the appeal now.

    (might be why I'm still filming stuff on a GH1 13 years on.  Anyway, musings of an old man.  If anyone wants to know how I used to walk to school uphill in snowstorms, drop me a DM)

  8. 6 hours ago, John Matthews said:

    It does something weird when skimming through a clip (strange macro-blocking)... not sure why that is. On Prores footage, which is roughly the same size doesn't do that. My impression is that the prores footage is better. Am I wrong?

    Oh, I don't actually know.  If your post-production workflow looks better to your eye, then stick with it.  There's no right or wrong answer here.

    Although I would say that if your final rendered movie files look okay, and if it's doing some macro blocking only during editing playback, then I personally wouldn't bother with transcoding; 422 data storage demands increase for instance. 

    Again, if that doesn't matter to you, then no worries.

  9. 6 hours ago, markr041 said:

    high shutter speeds are due to the lack of an ND

    I think the point he was getting at was this:  if you lowered the SS to 24fps you would find the digital stabilization process introducing visual artifacts, thereby making the image rather unusable.

    Be that as it may, personally I find high shutter speed video in general quite unusable and unattractive.  Unless it's a visceral visual effect that helps tell a story (Saving Private Ryan) then I'd rather not see high SS at all.

    Of course, there are post-plug-ins that do emulate motion blur...buuuuttt, that's tricky too on the IQ.

  10. I like IBIS for run-n-gun-handheld standard talking head corporate work. Takes the edge off footage and makes it palatable for clients.  I also abuse the hell out of slow-mo for corporate work.  For instance, stuff like this:

    I definitely don't like it for more cinematic work.  Shot one of my latest docs with it and I was, like, "Nope, not doing that again."

    AF? I don't care to worry about it.  Manual focusing just looks cool and I'm half way decent with pulling it, so I'll stick with MF.

  11. 5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    Big shift to personalities, clickbait, TV style content, away from magazines, articles, blogs. Shift to Facebook groups instead of forums. Shift to phones instead of laptops. It all encourages a lower quality of discourse and content. The shills and PR industry completely control the popular influencer scene which in itself gobbles up 90% of the attention ...It is a dreadful state of affairs.

    Modern culture is in a bit of a vortex with this, I think.  It's not just cameras.  Society has to figure out if it can evolve beyond this somehow --or if the majority of us are perfectly fine with being sophisticatedly exploited by our corporate overlords.

    I still visit forums because that's my comfort zone.  It's a form of interaction built upon years of usenet and also the communal gee-whiz-ness of personal computers from back in the day.  But, hell, I was born in the 60's, man.  I lived in a different world. 

    Your earlier metaphor is apt.  Some of us like a novel, but most people prefer a photo pamphlet. 

  12. 3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

    Is the general topic of cameras and video in decline?

    Sure is. 

    We had the renaissance just over a decade ago and now we're finally in a different landscape.  In the early 'Aughts consumers really couldn't make cinema level image quality.  I mean, the best we could do back then was rig up those goofy lens adapter machines and film a rotating disc capturing light from vintage lenses with a camcorder.

    The Sea-change unfolded starting with the 5DII and it was always a wild ride.  Now?  Damn near everyone has a pretty awesome motion picture imaging device.

    I know for myself I'm actually retro and like to play with things well behind the bleeding edge.   For instance, there's not a lot of people in general that would be interested anymore in me hacking another GH1 like I did last week, but in 2010?  Man, that would launch a thread of a 1,000 responses.

  13. I'll use whatever I think delivers what I want.  

    The market is the market and it'll probably fragment the photo/hybrid cam segment by shifting demand, but that's been ongoing, as mentioned.  

    Honestly, I'm playing with tools I never really thought I'd have easy access to, so I'm good with whatever moving forward.

  14. 4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

    Oh, I think the G7 was one of the best m4/3 cameras ever made

    Same sensor as the GX7?  'Cuz that's really my favorite.  I lost that camera and regret it to this day.  I should buy another one just so I can put it on my shelf and smile at it.

  15. Another tip: if you can find a spot with space, it gives you some flexible filming options. 

    Here's a bunch of shots from a very unsophisticated talking head video I made last year.  Shot it in 3 hours.  We only had 1 location for 9 people.  Had to make the setting change visually from interview to interview to interview just to break things up.

    Did some adjustments to the back ground light and camera angle between sit-downs.  Quick and easy.  The two lights being used on the interview subject never really changed.  A small softbox front key and a backlight was it, ambient through window blinds was my fill.  Just shuffled the variables and tried to get different looks. 

    Ultimately, it doesn't take a lot to do a lot.  And, as said, I always, always, always start with killing the room lights.  See what you get, then continue.

    Finally, here's my biggest dumb tip of all if you want to shoot something faster than you actually should:  Rotate 360 and try to find the light that allows the subject to be a few stops above the background.  Aim to achieve that visual separation.  Hold out the back of your fist at arms length, squint really hard, and get a sense if that's happening. 

    For instance, if you're holding your fist in front of a window, it's going to be a silhouette, rotate yourself 180 and your fist is most likely going to be the opposite, right?  Rotate another 30 degrees and you might actually start to see some interesting 'light-moulding' starting to happen.

    Anyway, it's pretty easy to start seeing light in your work spaces once you know what you're looking for.  It doesn't have to be some esoteric maths formula (even though it can be).  Just a smidgen of wisdom and practice can get you through.


    Screen Shot 2022-07-01 at 12.54.11 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2022-07-01 at 12.53.36 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2022-07-01 at 12.52.57 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2022-07-01 at 12.52.29 PM.png

    Screen Shot 2022-07-01 at 12.51.55 PM.png

  16. 37 minutes ago, FHDcrew said:

    They never seem to talk about all of these subtleties that I’m beginning to see a glimpse of. 

    I'm also a big fan of getting subjects as far away from any walls as possible.  Depends on what you're doing, but that's a neat subtlety.

    I've had clients ask me as I move them to the opposite end of the room (so there's a ton of depth behind 'em, while I'm scrunched in a corner with my camera), "What are we doing over here"?

    "The light is really nice here and you're looking awesome"

    Yeah... I'm always always always looking for depth.  I really don't like it when a videographer makes an already small room look smaller.

  17. On 6/29/2022 at 5:26 AM, FHDcrew said:

    You think that’s just random differences in how the light is bouncing?

    Yes.  Study how photons do their thing.  Even look at renaissance art. Seeing light, which you're starting to do, is the only way to get a handle on it.

    I just hired a shooter to do a gig and talked to him about everything required on the shoot, including turning off the practical lights and utilizing natural light entering through the windows and controlling the subject's location to maximize the look to his advantage.  In one ear and out the other.  He left the florescents on.

    Footage looks like shit.

    Actually, keeping light "small" is important to me.  I like filming and lighting with maximum dimness, or at least having the light go through room in an interesting way.   I also like taking the camera sensor and lens f-stops to the edge of their capabilities so the room can be darker.  All this allows for more interesting light falloff and controls the ambient if you're running anfd gunning.

  18. 1 hour ago, kye said:

    Most festivals I've seen operate behind-the-scenes using a dozen or so categories, normally like this:

    • Film that the judges happened to like
    • Another film that the judges happened to like
    • The next film that the judges happened to like
    • A film that the judges happened to smile at
    • Some other film that the judges happened to smile at
    • That strange film that the judges happened to enjoy
    • A film that the judges happened to laugh at
    • The film that the judges happened to think was cute
    • The film from the people the judges know
    • The film starring the person the main judge is sleeping with
    • The film directed by the person one of the judges wants to sleep with
    • Judges choice

    Astute.  However, at least in our festival the selection committee and the judges aren't the same folks.  So we have a smidge of integrity there.  But yeah, a lot of them still definitely judge on thematics, not craft.

  • Create New...