fuzzynormal

There's a bit of the argument in this example that parallels the whole LOTR's frame rate controversy. Insomuch that as you fail to stick to the traditional technical tropes of film look, you're going to be making stuff that messes with expectations. With LOTR, it was a different frame rate that upsets that expectation, with this 3D movie it's really bad lighting compounded with bad grading/colorization. With the 3D flick, I might even be generous and guess that maybe the director wanted the campiness of a video look as it fit the goofy narrative? Cheap-looking on purpose, perhaps? Who knows. Did the director ever clarify? Maybe he just got lucky with great cinematographers on earlier films and screwed on this one?

Interesting take on what a "video" look is, I think. Maybe the context of the content is altering your conceptions? Doc style footage does skew to a similar "video" camera use aesthetic.

A response to "why do some cameras create more of a film look" is simply: Perhaps those cameras are in the hands of people that know how to effectively use them. It's not just the camera that creates the craft. The gear is easy to get now a days. What are you going to do with it is now the bigger question.

For what it's worth, a 24mm 2.8 on a M43 sensor comes extremely close to matching a cinematographer's sweet spot settings. 35mm film shooting is a smaller imaging area than a full frame sensor, so this does't match up perfectly, but M43 basically has a 2x FF factor. So, 24mm becomes 48mm and 2.8 becomes 5.6. And that's where you want to be a good bit of the time. Maybe slightly longer lens for talky scenes, but otherwise it's a good place to play for a ton of conventional shooting.

That's not a pan. It's a bad slider shot and the unbalanced friction of the slider is physically staggering the camera; making the whole camera body actually shake.

Mmmmmm, that's some juicy vertigo. And I used to think I was ballsy climbing my local grain silo.

I do a lot of documentary stuff wherein I don't control room lighting. Manual exposure, no exceptions there. I almost always expose for my subject, a few exceptions here. I "eyeball" the exposure on the LCD. If it looks good I roll with it, lots of exceptions here. Of course, you have to understand what "looks good" and why, but that's the shortest/simplest answer I can give. Wisdom eventually will help dial you in to get shots that aren't over or underexposed.

In my experience, 3-axis gimbals work fine enough straight away once it's all balanced and dialed in. You can get better with 'em as you go, but they're easily useable even for a neophyte.

Yup, no doubt. But at the same time it certainly doesn't look "video." I'm not saying it's what you should do without a knowledgable consideration, it's just a quick recipe for hitting those flavors that describe "cinema" (in the context of what it used to be before digital)

I do think it's stunning to get such a great picture out of such a small camera, but you're going to get some weird mud by going -5 on the parameters. I know I do.

Of course, we can all talk highfalutin' about how to get superior cinematography with DSLR's/Mirrorless, but here's the cliff notes/shortcut to a "film" look that is pretty cheap and easy. Cheap being an operative word here: Slap some sort of old manual 50mm lens on a Rebel/Lumix/Alpha/Nikon, open the iris all the way, record@24fps, run your shutter @50 or below, adjust exposure with ND and/or ISO --you'd be able to create a "film" look by doing that I'd wager. All would have slightly different IQ, but then so does film stock. Regardless, it's not going to look like video camcorder footage. Well, let's not forget that then you have to do something informed with all such stuff. Knowing why this would work is arguably just as important as doing it, however.

I still assert that if you have the right skills and people, you can go into a camera store, leave after spending $500, and have good enough imaging gear to shoot a film that has the potential look indistinguishable from most of the films that have ever existed. The imaging devices are now that good. It's all the other stuff that matters more. And there' so much other stuff. If you want to be a filmmaker, an answer isn't "buy this or that camera." It's "study." You can't buy your way into a career by purchasing gear. (you kind of could a generation ago) You have to develop skills and then have a viable, unique, and interesting outlook with those skills.

This is true. I've done it for this exact look. It's definitely one of those "too much of a good thing" kind of aesthetics; which is interesting if that's what you're going for. Bottom line (this is an exaggeration but with some truth in it) if you're an amateur and unaware of the "recipe" to create cinema, it's probably going to look like video. You could shoot and then project film camera footage in such a way to make it look like video, for instance.

Exactly this. And this. Basically, in certain minds, any attention is validation.

Third post's a charm, right? Curious: are you the guy that makes those vampire movies? As for the 4K. I got no issues with a blogger that enjoys tech getting excited about new tech. The fact that he fosters that excitement is okay by me.

Amen to that. For a short film narrative, :60 spot, or maybe a music video I'd consider a shoot in RAW because the workflow for those projects are suited for a pedantic approach. I'm certainly not tenacious enough to use RAW for my long-form documentaries though, and that's where I do most of my stuff. Folks need to realize that for every job there are different solutions. Gets kind of nuts when people argue about the "best" camera. "Best" camera? In what context, you know?

Well of course 4K can look better, there's more resolution. I'm just saying 1080, properly and dramatically shot, looks great as it is. My local camera shop has a pretty scuffed but otherwise perfectly functional used 5DII for sale at $730, so I exaggerated a bit on that one. Anyway, my main point is the tools are cheaply there to create and create wonderfully on par to a pro level. It's not to deny that better gear exists.

For what it's worth, this is one punk that's more than willing to stay away from a toxic work environment.

By doing the same thing, but different. And then we all get to read various internet postings from fan boys. They'll assert that because they made a decision to spend their money on Canon, it's so much better than Sony. And Panasonic? Forget about it, just because they were first, doesn't mean they're the best and so on and so on. It's just that this time the phrase 4K will be used a whole lot more. It's silly, but that's all part of what helps sells these things.

Neat-o. As I say, great time to be in the imaging game.

I get what you're talking about, but I will disagree a bit as I do think video is already there. And I LOVE low-end DSLR equipment and really don't think it sucks at all. It's not even as good as it's going to get, but it's very valid for "pro" work. I've been paid a lot over the past few years shooting on an old 5DII and a few primes from the 1980's. My last personal DSLR film projected on huge festival theatre screens @1080 and it looked awesome. Was it the film with the most resolution? Maybe, maybe not...but unless you really tried, you couldn't tell. Here's a for instance: I recently snagged my GM1 for $600 and sold the kit lens for $300. I can put a used $100 Nikkor 24mm lens on the thing and get pro level images. Easily. $400 bucks, a great film idea, and some disciplined talent that's pretty much all you need now. You can get it done. I could get a used 5DII for about $700. A used Rebel for less than $400, etc. If you know what you're doing with that gear you can do pro level stuff without any trouble. That's my personal testimony anyway.

Considering Panasonic has about zero retail visibility here, I'd be surprised. I'd like to see it, but certainly don't expect it.

Sure. Would you do that for a wedding shoot though?

I've shot with the Rebels. The new GM1 and GX7 is superior in low light. When you add a speedbooster adapter it's even better. You'll also match the sensor size with the boost, so you'd be good to go. That said, I don't think I'd run around with a GM1 for a wedding video. It's not difficult to use, just quirkier, but the GX7 lends itself better to run'ngun. I also like the 60p option on the GX7 as I slow-mo conform that footage into 24fps. I do like the GX7 ergo's. I have a set of MFT primes and they're nice compact lenses, but I find that I like shooting the GX7 with my old Nikkor manual lenses more. A nice heft and balance; plus the iris ring and physical focusing...I'm an old dog I guess. It's not too hard to pull focus with peaking and the EVF.