fuzzynormal

C'mon, everyone.  The original post is a joke.  Even if the person that posted the question was serious.  Heck, especially if the person that posted the question was serious.

since I want to shoot 4k…the 5d mark 3 raw and bmpcc are now obsolete?

If you 100% want to shoot 4K, then, for you, gear that doesn't shoot 4k is indeed obsolete.

I think the GM1 does that. But what is the best zoom lens for that task?

I think so.  

Totally depends on you visual tastes.  I like the "standard" focal range 50mm - 100mm, but for climbing I can see how something wide would be nice.

Handheld you're probably not going to want to zoom in too much anyway, right?  With the kit lens you get an full frame equivalent 24mm to 64mm.  Good workhorse sort of range there.  And since you're shooting in daylight, you need not worry about having a fast lens.

I suppose if you want something low-light for evenings around the fire, taking along a fast pancake prime would help.  Otherwise, just roll with the GM1's kit lens.

Oh, I'd suggest putting a .9 ND and polarizer on the lens too.  It'll help keep your shutter speed reasonable on bright sunny days.

The kit zoom is sharp and pretty good.  I just like to shoot on primes with shallow DOF and more on the telephoto side of things.  If that doesn't matter to you, you'll find that the compact zoom is perfectly adequate.

HUGE depth of field everything is in focus!! = video looking

Yup...As well as frame rate.  M43 sensors with a f2.8 and 24p is going to emulate a "cinematic" look.  It just will.  MKII with f16 and 60p will look "video."  It just will.

Gotta know what you're doing and why things do what they do to get the images required.

The results may surprise you.

Cool.  Glad you like the Olympus.  It's intriguing and thanks for the breakdown.  I'll probably wait until it offers 24p/60p, but I see it's value and covet it's capabilities...just need a few more tweaks.

However, I can consider shooting 30p and conforming to 24 for one of my current projects.  The rock solid handheld is tempting.

Maybe it's because the serious hobbyist and professionals are heavily invested in Canon and Nikon glass?

That has something to do with it.  I do like my Nikon lenses.  

On the other hand, I've met amateurs and enthusiasts that lean on the notion that the better the gear the better they'll be at their endeavors.

It's an interesting American trait; not sure if it prevalent in other 1st world countries...?

For instance, you can't just ride a friggin' bicycle here, for many people they have to have equipment on par with the Italian team that competes in the Tour de France.  I'm not exaggerating.  Just peddling a regular bike for a few miles for neighborhood commutes in everyday clothes does't seem to be an option.

You want to go out for a hike?  Well, you better outfit your feet with $700 boots for that weekend jaunt of 3 miles.  Stuff like that.  I worry sometimes that there's a culture of over indulging in acquiring things in order to just do simple things.

Same goes with photo gear.  An acquaintance of mine bought a Hasselblad and 4 prime lenses; cost more than his house.  Such are the priorities for some. He took pictures of the mountains of Wyoming with it.  That was about it.  Pix were't anything special either.  

Anyway, everyone has different motivations, some just seem odd to me.

Arguably, it could be the psychology of just presenting an idealized image of oneself to one's peers?  Thus, bigger equals better?  Perception equals reality?  American's have a culture that's marketed to and advertised to relentlessly.  We're told that without item "A" we are less than those that have "A".  Without "A" we can't be happy.  Do we all accept those marketing ideals on a subconscious level?  Could it be as simple as insecurity?  Without the bigger things we don't feel accomplished?

The USA is definitely a "Big" nation, I do know that.

Yet here I am making a documentary on a Lumix GM1...exceptions, rules, and all that I suppose.

No point having a codec that can produce 15 or even 20 stops of DR if the sensor in that camera can only provide 12.

 

The codecs are developed independent of the sensor hardware.  A company could build a 4K sensor that only used 10 steps of dynamic range.  Another company could build 4K sensor that shot 20 steps.  They could both use the same codec for their video.

How they implement that codec in their hardware is the thing.  In the meantime, the codec must be licensed with hardware manufacturers and software developers paying a fee.

Is that aimed at me? I guess not because I never made that strange assumption.

Correct guess.

Business men in suits have given the masses 4K.  Even if 99% of consumers and professionals alike have not requested it.

While true, I welcome this particular technology push as a marketing tool.  

I also believe they're doing this for the simple reason that making sensors with more pixels is a ton easier than making a sensor with better dynamic range.  Simply:  It's cheaper and gives them some marketing clout.

Like the "megapixel" wars, the numbers will matter less as it all equalizes across competition.  When that happens IQ will have its day.

Especially as pro and enthusiast photographers start using video as a means of non-stop stills shooting.  Those customers are demanding and IQ matters.  They're not going to settle for 4K if the IQ is inferior.

It's all moving forward and I'm cool with that.

stating that 4k has better DR just because it's 4k is plain wrong.

Indeed.  That's kind of  a strange assumption.  Anyone that's been using a variety of digital cameras should be more than well aware of the IQ between different sensors.

I think that most of the Old Wives Tales go back to Interlaced SD & problems with conversions between PAL & NTSC

 

Hardly an old wives tale.  It's hard science.  PAL and NTSC have to/had to use a frame rate that synchronized to the alternate current that powered the televisions.

Now that analog is over, that old tech problem isn't much an issue for editing, as you can use whatever frame rate you desire (I still wouldn't mix and match frame rates that can't be equally divided) ... but if you shoot 60p under artificial light in a country that doesn't use 60 hz power line frequency, you gotta do as you suggested:  adjust the shutter to match the frequency of the power supply.

It all kind of goes back the the AC/DC feud between Edison and Tesla.  

You can be totally productive with terribly basic hardware when you take a disciplined approach and understand the process.

What this guy said.  Read it.  Believe it.  Comprehend it.  

Out of all the variables needed to make good motion pictures, gear is such a small part of the equation.  I wish there was less fretting about equipment.  With all this modern technology it's all good enough to allow incredible creations...so create.

Or, collect, I guess.  I know I'm guilty of just wanting some new "thing" just because it's cool.  I have a weakness for collecting gadgets.

But the fact is we all have better imaging power in our hands than most film makers did in the 60's and 70's.  The bigger question is, what am I going to do with it?

agreed…alexa over red…kodak 35mm overall..

This is going off topic, but from the online discussions I've seen, what some folks don't seem to fathom about the whole resolution debate,  when talking in the context of a film like The Hobbit, is the characteristics of perceived resolution when the frame rate increases.

The faster the frame rate, the more that particular series of still pictures are viewed as more RESOLVED and lifelike...even if the pixel resolution is IDENTICAL and shot from the SAME camera.

Everyone seems to focus their discuss pixel resolution, when it (I think) is about the aesthetic issue of slower frame rates.  This is an overlooked cinematic effect that shouldn't be ignored on-line, but too often is.  (Professionals get it though)

Look, here's a straw man for ya:

"Oh, I like films shot on the Alexa!" people argue, "It's so much better than everything else.  So organic and "pure."  Well, yeah.  It kinda is, but are you enamored with the cinematic look of the frame rate or the actual image resolution?  I suggest it's both.  If you shot 60p on an Alexa I guarantee you a film purist would take one look at the result and be horrified at the "videoness" of the image.  Shoot the same exact scene at 24p on the Alexa, play it back, and the film purist would instantly feel more comfortable. 

Aside from all that, just watching a film shot in 48p, then played back and displayed at 24p will certainly alter the perceived cinematic aesthetic of the film.  It will present different visual characteristic.  At 24p you'd be watching every other frame of a 48p shoot and that's all it takes.  Watch the footage at it's initially shot 48p and it starts to look more "video/electronic" (and thus less cinematic) to the human eye.

You got a camera and monitor that does both 25p and 50p?  Shoot 50p and put the clip on a 50p timeline and then on a 25p time line.  Watch the difference.  Or, shoot a horse race at 50p then shoot another at 25p and go look at the perceived change of the image.  You'll see in a hurry it's not an issue about resolution that's altering your idea of what it means for an image to be "cinematic."

...and I'm not even getting into motion blur and shutter speeds, which also greatly alter the perception of moving pictures.

Long rant short:  It's not just about the resolution.

I've read about making proxies and stuff, but most of the sites I've consulted talk about RAID and so forth, stuff

I'm not really familiar with.

 

The workflow to do editing involves an intermediate step, sure, but I did plenty of proxy editing in the mid-90's (imagine a computer not powerful enough to handle 29.97 640x480 video) and proxy edits are not that big of a deal.  I'd rather do proxy cuts than spend 10K on computer hardware.

If you do proxy editing you would't need a RAID, really.

In FCP, for example, you'd simply ingest your media in a proxy low res format and do your entire edit.  When it's finished you'd load in your high res clips and then reconnect the files for a 4K video.

Anyway, point is, it might seem like a big deal to accomplish if you haven't done it before, but once you've pulled it off, you'd realize it's not too difficult.

I actually did a documentary edit this way two years ago because loading up hundreds of hours of 1080 422 prores was too much data...so we just cut it low-res.

This should be my future camera...or I should say my future camera is one that shoots 60fps (I'm an American) with 5-axis stabilization. (can I hope for 4k?)  I can't tell you how vital that feature set would be for my run 'n gun work.

Oh, we're so dang close...!

Personally after looking at the Sony HandyCam FDR-AX100 I felt it has one of the most significant improvements of image quality I've seen in that price range.

Indeed.  Also, as you say, a video camera is a video camera.

It's built to do certain tasks quite well and that matters.  I have a client for which I shoot travel footage; exotic locations, 12-16 hour days, all run and gun.  This camera will get the job done for them easily and with greater quality than what they're using now.  

As such for some assignments it's an easy decision.  The gear fits so I'd use it.

Bingo.

Which is why one begins to wonder if teams like those that made the DBolex are going to be the future business model for those of us that are hobbyist/enthusiasts?

I recommend shooting with the aperture wide open for a more romantic look.  Seems like the subject matter would benefit this style.  

Also, I'd suggest shooting everything at 50fps, and then edit in 25fps.  This way you can make some shots slow-mo if you wish.  Slow motion motorcycling looks awesome.

You need ND filters so when you're outside you can get the proper exposure.  If you're shooting a shutter of 50 with a f2.8 @200iso, you'll most likely need two 0.9 ND filters on a bright day to get a proper exposure.

Previous post are good advice regarding the audio.  For all that's holy, do yourself a huge favor and work VERY hard at getting great audio.  You won't regret it if you do.  You will if you don't.  I use a wireless lav on my main subject at all times when shooting a doc.  It's easy and gets clean sound.  If you can't do that, consider hiring someone to run a boom.  Shotguns mounted on the cam?  Just not a fan of that, but better than nothing.

The easiest thing to do is putting the blame on anything and anyone but yourself.

I work almost every day as a freelancer.  I do stuff on lots of different gear.  Still, I would like to have 4K.  And when I do I'll continue to work almost every day as a freelancer and do stuff on lots of different gear...

Gotta job tomorrow or else I'd go check it out.  Intriguing machine, this.

Clearly the mirrorless/M43 fills a need in the market, but is it big enough and sustainable enough to warrant the R&D that goes in to advancing the format?

This raises a bigger question about market health overall.  And it's legitimate.  Elsewhere on the forum you can find a discussion about the digital Bolex.  A lot of folks believe that it's not technologically advanced enough to be successful.  However, I begin to wonder if smaller enterprises like the crew that built the DBolex might be heralding the future of the Enthusiast/Hobbyist market?

When image technology is so advanced that most consumers are satisfied with smart phones as cameras, then what's left?   And is that piece of the pie better suited for more nimble/smaller businesses?

15 years from now I imagine all portable technology is going to be able to produce incredibly high resolutions at wonderful detail in low light.  Then what?  It'll be interesting to see who's still here as a manufacturing business and what they're offering.

In the meantime, I'm off to go shoot on my 1080 machine.

Money is being made from those reading the reviews If the review is skewed then the people buying those products suffer.

You figured it out.  Buyer beware.  What someone does with their money is their problem and their decision.  How they're influenced is their responsibility no one else's.

can you elaborate?

It's touched on in Andrew's article.

Better than RAW/ProRes 1080?

From what I understand, depending on sensor circumstances, yes.