fuzzynormal

In the industry, I'd agree that legacy attitudes and craft work will remain. People that are considerate of what they're doing tend to make more artistic decisions. However, The YouTubers and social media influencers will be leading a certain aesthetic moving forward, I think. Hard to run from that avalanche. We'll get used to (have gotten used to?) 60p and vertical video, for example.

That's the basics. Dial it in however you want, you're essentially pulling colors around in the mids. Making warmer in the upper mids, cooler in the low mids. The dark and bright stay clean, even desaturated to taste. I've never done a deep dive into being a colorist, just looked at stuff and pulled things around to my liking. Very dillitante'ish, as usual. Still have the first video I really gave it a go at the technique, shot over 10 years ago on an actual video camcorder using dem dere videos tape thingies we used to have.

I've been using it for years because I do like the complimentary colors and I was in the habit of trying to make video look more like film. The world of media is forgetting film now, and the kids doing stuff aren't aware of that legacy, so the color tricks to mimic it are less popular. But I'll stick with it a little bit as I'm not into accurate color. I like my footage a bit outside of "reality."

Anyone know approx. how many stops of exposure there is between 200 and 25 ISO? I long for the day I can dial in proper exposure for motion picture shooting using only ISO.

Olympus EM5II. It did nothing exceptional but for the IBIS. IQ? Meh. Good enough. Colors? Pretty good, but not Canon. Still, the thing is the compact size, the design of the camera, the ergos. I just liked shooting with it. Enjoyed it so much I wanted to take it with me wherever I went. For me, it was a joy to use. Haven't had a camera like that for decades. I also have a warm spot in my heart for the GM1. Weird little thing that was charming to use and shoot with.

The guy likes to make things that resemble dreams. VR seem like a good place to do that.

If you have the time/collection, always use a single filter to give you what your want. Especially ND. That said, I shoot run-and-gun and I use a variable ND. It mucks with the sharpness of the image, but the trade off of being able to grab exposure in a split-second makes it worthwhile, imho.

Yes. In my experience, it's best to just turn it off once you're below a FF equiv of 16mm. Unless you're trying to get completely static shots while hand-held only. Otherwise, no IBIS on the wides. BTW, Optical stabilization with FUJI lenses is good. But then you're locked into buying FUJI lenses on those bodies.

Handheld by yourself? Suggest that Olympus with their IBIS is a good bet. I also use a GH5. Good codec and color, imho. Useable IBIS, but inferior to Olympus. AF? Myself, I'm not a fan of AF, like a bit of human wabi-sabi in the shots. Maybe consider buying a set of three old manual primes with a straight dumb adapter and speed booster. You'll get 6 focal lengths from 3 lenses...and you can get those lenses cheap too. More than enough to give you cinematic options. Throw in a variable ND with step up rings and it can travel across your glass --making run and gun a LOT more pragmatic. I'm not a fan of how variable ND mucks the image a bit, but the trade off is worth it. I have an old EOS Sigma 10-20mm wide and when adapted with the speed booster it's an expansive field of view.

As you may have noticed, the film making industry makes plenty of movies specifically for dumb people. It's the larger market, so why not?

Yeah, I just like old lenses too. They don't resolve resolution as well as modern lenses when wide, but... so what? You get good character out of them. I did another one of these "hometown" things with the Oly 12-40 Pro f.28, and it looks sharp as a tack, but it's also kind of sterile. Good for things if that's what you want/need, but I always like taking the edge off of video. For the chainsaw guy, I shot most of that stuff at f2.8 through a cheap-ass variable ND. FWIW, if you shoot stopped down a bit and without filters, almost all lenses made in the last 100 years will look fine for video.

There are many way to do LINUX formatted disks. extFS also works on Windows. I believe you can do command line level LINUX formatting with some other software. I didn't want to bother, so I just got extFS. BTW, the trial software works for...10 days (?), if I remember. The first DCP-saved-to-a-disk I made, I made for free in about an hour. FWIW, I did get extFS when the trial expired because I just wanted to make sure if anything happened and I need to create new DCP's quickly, I could do so. So, I basically just put my DCP's on a few random USB thumb drives I had laying about. The first cinema I gave it to complained that the thumb drive worked, but was super slow (it was), so I got a few newer ones with acceptable read/write speeds, no complaints after that. Before I did all this, just by bumping around the internet, I was imagining that making DCP's was some esoteric wizard level computer stuff. And 15 years ago it kind of was in a way....but now, it's literally just hitting "export" on Premiere, clicking a few parameters to set up, and then saving the DCP folder on a LINUX drive. Easy.

I read the same myself online, but it was in there Premiere so I tried it. What the heck, it's "free," right? Worked fine in my experience. Never had an issue and I ran the DCP through about 13 different cinemas. I did buy software called extFS for Mac. It gives you a simple GUI to format disks in LINUX (makes DCP systems happy) but it was only something like $30.

It's built into Premiere. There's a few solid YT tutorials.

I do have a super cute Pentax a110 fixed f2.8 50mm that I've been wanting to use. Hmmm...

Finally sat down with footage from over a month ago. Shot for about 45 minutes with this guy, grabbed some goofy audio, and eventually put in my afternoon of editing. I used a Helios-44-2. So, 116mm FF equiv on the M43 camera I used. Lens had a variable ND filter on it.

Figure out how to tell a story. Build a tale of high-stakes, conflict, resolution, redemption. Use whatever toys you have to accomplish that. Your gear is adequate, but I see that you're fretting so much about the technical. I can't stress this enough, it really doesn't matter. Your. Gear. Is. Good. Enough. That part is done. Figure out how to tell a story. Concentrate ALL your efforts on that. Don't worry about ProRes vs. DNxHD. Don't worry about this drone vs. that drone. Premiere vs. Resolve? Not really going to matter. Don't even worry about frame rate. Pick one you like. There, you're done with that. Anymore consideration into these things is a waste of time. A lot of new filmmakers fall into the trap of putting the majority of their efforts into equipment and specs because it's a somewhat non-creative aspect of the craft and results are objective and easy to understand and control. Avoid this. However, do accept that story telling is difficult and messy and highly subjective. Understand you'll make storytelling decisions that are flawed. It's part of the challenge. But you absolutely gotta do it as your main focus. Figure out how to tell a story. Does your protagonist have an antagonist? Can you frame what they're doing as a "hero's journey?" What sort of set-backs will they have to struggle through? Can they overcome those road blocks? Will you be able to film those moments to tell such a story? Is there a bit with a dog in it? These are the things that really matter. Also, making bad movies is depressing. I can't tell you all the corporate projects I've unfortunately done over the years where the singular goal was to put a camera on someone, have them talk to a dry boring interviewer, snag a few b-roll shots on the way out the door, and call it good. Bah. That's a recipe for mediocrity. You could shoot that crap on an ARRI and no one would give two shits except the people that got to play with the ARRI. And unless your subject is someone like Robin Williams on one of his cocaine benders, it's not going to be interesting. You want to make a film? A real film? Figure out how to tell a story. Okay, that rant over. You asked about DCP. So, I do a film festival every winter. We screen 8-bit .mp4's off a laptop at 1080 and they look fricking awesome. Why? Because we care about our projection system and have dialed it in with high-end equipment that's well-considered for the theater we use. Not everyone does this. Properly encoded .mp4's can look beautiful. Well shot movies made into DCP's can look like crap. Depends. It's not the file, it's the system that screens it. Here's another anecdote: I toured my doc around the country this year with an .mp4 exhibition screener as well as a DCP. The best screening experience I had was with the .mp4 running off a laptop into a consumer projector. It just so happened the particular auditorium was gorgeous AND had a new projector AND the image it put out looked lovely. OTOH, I had a screening of my DCP at a well known multi-plex chain that looked awful, even though my DCP looked absolutely fine elsewhere. Your film is often at the mercy of teenagers running the projection system...and who knows what state that projection system is in. Now, the bad thing about .mp4's is that it's such a generic format that inevitably some Boomer will be running a $400 laptop and a cheap-ass projector in a rinky dink film festival that's been set up in the town's abandoned bank lobby...with no window black outs and a complete lack of understanding how to operate the sound system. BTW, it's a sound systems that's a low-end PA in a room made out of marble. That sounds oddly specific, right? It's happened to me twice. None of your technical stuff matters one bit in that situation. When you're out in the wild with your screeners, shit happens. Finally, you absolutely do not need 4K for exhibition screening. People are too far away from the screen to notice that level of resolution. 4K is great for editing and then downscaling to 1080 for exhibition screening, but 4K for screening? Only in very specific situations. I get 4k ProRes screeners for our festival. I get DCP's as screeners for our festival. Take a wild guess what I transcode them into for playback on our system... Don't worry so much about the technical. Figure out how to tell a story

I know that's the knock that a lot of filmmakers use, albeit facetiously, when coveting big pro cameras like this. What I always find amusing is that these cameras are coveted not only because they make a wonderful image, but because the projects they watch online look "cinematic." Well, yeah, when you use any large ass camera to make stuff, you tend to slow down a bit and put the beast on a tripod or rig system that helps create the "cinema" look. Also keep in mind that expensive cameras demand consideration to use them. It's part of the cinematic-algebra in making stuff with big gear. Plus, you get actual talented craftspeople that have ascended to the upper-tier of the profession and know how to use the tricks of the trade. Knowing and leveraging light is the other biggie. I know a successful documentarian that was banging out award winning productions about once a month. He's always getting complimented for his cinematography, and he told me "Shit man, I just always put the damn camera on a tripod." Simple as that (well, not really, but that's his "big" piece of craft). I asked him what he's shooting with and it's mostly the Canon C-series, but he's used anything and everything. He just refuses to go off sticks. There ya go. And, yes, the Alexa is still the bees knees. I don't find the size daunting at all. My job in the 90's and 'Aughties was to travel around the world with pro SD and HD video tape cameras. They were always big. Eh, what's this then? I have two GH1's laying around and haven't really played with them in a few years. Is this a thing I've been unaware of?

Maybe they're just shifting their sales strategy? I can imagine that they don't have as much market penetration in the upscale market as they need to sustain, so they're going for a new segment? If so, other models could take a hit, but they have to do it.

Oh, I'd disagree quickly with that. Who we are in life is who we are as filmmakers. Unless you're just a straight ahead craft-person singularly focused on the technical, you should always give some of what you and who you are are to your creations. I mean, that's just a prerequisite for this sort of work. Otherwise, what's really the point, right? So, I really don't have a problem with it. There's more common ground that divergence (still) than we might admit. Might be hard to believe when we're behind these keyboards a lot of time, but when one is actually out there in the real world it's evident.

I'm verbose about things I care about, yuck yuck, what a nerd, right? Oh well. I'll just keep Popeye'ing over here. Don't really feel any shame about that.

Thanks. (I think?)

The truth is what we make it? Wow. And "Jail?" This is the propaganda that infects populism and factless-based thinking. As much as I'd suppose you'd like it to be true, the GOP would probably be unable to launch a criminal indictment into Hunter Biden because it's only a wild-hair conspiracy and current investigations into Biden's role have him operating within the confines of the law. Truthiness vs. fact. Yarn on a white board is not criminality. Regardless if Biden was guilty as sin, the POTUS is STILL not allowed to break the law to satisfy his inclinations. It just doesn't work that way in a society based on law and order. Here's another fact: DT could have worked to launch an investigation above board and he probably could have pulled it off. You and I know he just wanted the political optics, not the reality. And please note that actual facts of corruption have led directly to jail time for those in the Trump orbit. Indictments. Trials based on evidence. Incarceration. That's just a fact. Ignoring that actual fact is wildly odd to me. As for Kavanugh, it's a he said/she said. Claiming your guy is right and she's a liar is an assertion. Could be right. Could be wrong. Don't ignore that the justice department overtly refused to follow up with the accusations. Might have led to absolutely nothing, but other witnesses were ready to testify and were not allowed to. There's a fact. Also curious how "not that bad" in your examples is atrocity level stuff. Biblical injustices. Sure it could always be worse. We could implode as a species. We might. That's not an argument for allowing (or even encouraging) people to act in bad faith. I'd rather it not get to that point, y'know? Which is my point. You push back at the small stuff because the small stuff adds up to a big result the more you let it slide. Ultimately I'm not interested in disagreeing with opinions, I just want a baseline for reality...and we ain't got it right now. It's slipping away. Really? I don't. I guess I can't make the leap. Too wide a chasm for me intellectually. Moreover I believe it to be amoral, if not immoral to do something like this. If one's values are based on particular conditions, how valuable are they ultimately?

I can certainly appreciate that sort of sentiment. It's honest. I'm not a Hillary fan either. Her and the DNC deserve(d) a kick in their uppity teeth. However, I fail to see how "an ends justifies the means" attitude should be at play. If the POTUS is a bad actor, it's reasonable to call them out on it regardless of other circumstances. In other words, don't cover for the guy because you think it could be worse. Rather, think it could be better and push towards that.

Believe me, I'm well aware that there's a strategy to manipulate the media, but can we agree that any and all assertions from the POTUS are rarely "little stuff"? You know, I've heard that "not a big deal" "just a joke" argument as well. My reply is that lies matter, regardless. I'll always think it's demonstrably detrimental to the nation. Personal emotional truths are valued over factual evidence, and that doesn't lead to good places in a society that needs to be secular and inclusive to all its citizens. Now, you may disagree with that fundamental assertion of what the USA should be regarding evidential facts, and think my rationality is wrong from the start. One of my friends in particular has realized we're somewhat at odds with this attitude, given his religious devotion, so we know our perspectives --we've learned to cope as best we can. Nevertheless, hewing to some sort of ideals and reality is a thing that is important, especially in a person unable to hold onto evidential facts being the POTUS. Petty lies matter or nothing does. I'd also say, the whole "not a big deal, you shouldn't be so angry" shtick is an argumentative retreat I've hashed out with my friends too. It's a dismissal and avoidance of criticism; ultimately a sort of "shoot the messenger." Maybe tolerating criticism is just something that's not as easily shared if you're a right-leaning personality? It often seems that way in my experience. I mean, we had some fun arguments when Obama was POTUS, but I personally really never cared too much about allowing such criticisms. To be fair, I also hang with some hard-core liberals that are annoyingly intolerable with their skewed attitudes about stuff. Like nails on a chalkboard. So, yeah, the "angry" thing as a broad brush? Not sure about that nor the fairness of the attitude. Never mind that I'm...as my mom would often say... not angry (with my country or POTUS) I'm disappointed. So, here's a good example of what I wrote. The plain and simple fact is that the plant was initiated under the previous administration. By your reasoning, Barrak Obama should be the one to take the credit. (and to be clear, I don't really believe the POTUS should take economic credit for everything) Yet, DT did. His assertion is a lie, the extrapolation you've drawn from it is questionable ("some companies have changed direction" would like to see your notated examples on that, as I'm aware of companies that are doing more of the same they'd be doing otherwise, but now with stock buy backs, which can be easily argued that hurt the economy overall), but here you are offering him praise rather than skepticism. Like I'm saying, either the facts matter or nothing does. It's how DT can get away with "No Quid Pro Quo!" with his supporters even though that assertion is in direct conflict by openly admitted fact from those that run his administration. This is what manipulation and propaganda looks like and it's not a small thing.