fuzzynormal

So many film festivals out there are such baloney. The worst are the ones wherein your film gets "selected" but never screens. A close second are the ones that screen their selections, but decide to do it in a conference room on a DVD player. Many out there are nothing more than money grabs. Some doofus will set up a "festival" on FilmFreeway --and then never does anything irl. It's just online nonsense. As they say, "Pics or it didn't happen." I've entered 'em all as a doc filmmaker. Been there and done that. And because I've been burned, frustrated by the process, and want to do it right, I now help run a small legitimate film festival in my SoCal hometown. If you're interested in submitting, our "Early Bird" window is still open and here's a discount code: PROMOBSFF33. It's basically a cheap $14 submission fee right now. Once you're in, and if you attend, we go out of our way to try and make the experience a special one. Check out the BSFF here. You'll see all the films we've programmed over the years and you can even delve into our blog for more info. It's all there. If you think it's a good fit, send in your work. As for the tech question, many will take only 1080p. DCP or otherwise. You'd probably have to letter box to fit. I know that's what we do for the BSFF. We've also screened 4K files starting in 2018, but I think we're still kind of the exception.

It's a cheap one. Zomei. Adds hue to the mix, but whatever, one lives with it. I can shoot outside in the sun at f.95 with it. No hard stops, but that's okay as I'm often adjusting exposure during a shot (when one tries to capture candid doc stuff, the camera just keeps rolling). My issue is the extra layers of glass really does flare alot and it does knock down other details. But that's true on whatever VND you use, or any stacking of glass. Yeah, it's a GH5, for whatever that's worth, with (mostly) a Voightlander 42.5mm. BTW, I too used B+W ND's a lot in the past, and wanted to go that way, but just couldn't get my hands on them fast enough for an upcoming shoot I had last year, so settled for the Zomei.

This is a free video I did for some friends of mine. I used a VND on 90% of the shots. You can easily see the issues it creates. Just the flaring alone is annoying. On the other hand, I shot everything in about 6 hours and had lots of shots to choose from. Which, for these types of low-budget-fast-moving situations, is much better than structured shooting. https://vimeo.com/275498959/9ad0d5cf95

I always considered making something similar, but smaller, on the backside of a lens adapter. Or, I also thought it would be fun to design an honest to goodness lens turret. Old school cool and functionality. Which sounds like a good idea, but gets impractical with larger sensors Some Chinese thing came out a few years ago (or maybe it was a kickstarter campaign). You'd slide 52mm ND's into a magnetic slot of the lens adapter. Pop in and out whatever you want behind the lens. All interesting "solutions," but I just really got spoiled with VND. I hate the IQ concessions and flares, but a lot of what I do is captured so fast I have no option for any sort of down time. I accept the negative because of the positives it offers. Funnily enough, and as a contradiction, I almost always refuse to shoot with variable lenses. I stick to my primes. Although, full disclosure, I do tend to pick one focal length and shoot the entire project with it.

Yup, they're click tracking the performance for studio recording lay-in after the fact. Nice technique for doing live music video stuff if your performers are skilled enough for it. I once did a "live" music video with a rock band across multiple performances in multiple cities. This was without click track. However, the drummer was so solid on recreating his tempo, I could pull up to 20 second excerpts that would hold sync to their studio recording. Mind you it was through different days, weeks, and "moods" of the venue. Kind of amazing, really. The one time I asked him to actually use a click track while playing and he couldn't do it!

I've become way too run n gun to NOT use VNR, but this is what I don't like about em.

Can confirm. Same on mine.

I did a series of docs a year ago recording wireless audio onto a H1. All audio was recorded "out-board" and, in post, the H1 audio and cam-audio tracks were synced with Plural Eyes. The Zoom and audio receiver were carried in my pockets. This allowed me to be rather incognito since that extra gear was off the camera. More importantly, this also allowed me to not be tethered to the camera via the headphone cable. Liked it better that way; no weird boxes, rubber bands, or wires on top of my camera --or wires running to the camera. That would be my recommendation, assuming you're willing to do a little post-audio-sync work. You'll get better audio using the H1 recording anyway, and your camera will have a little more freedom when out there actually doing stuff. (I love those old Nikkor lenses, btw. That's the 24mm, right?)

For "Man on the Street" stuff, it makes perfect sense. IQ isn't terribly important. Even with "pro" cameras and cameramen, if you watch local news broadcast you'll soon discover IQ is the least of their worries.

I shot 6 documentaries on the DMC‑GX8. The 4K IQ to my eye is impressive. The camera is pretty cheap used so you'd have some cash left over to get a decent zoom lens for it.

Teal and orange, baby. Teal and orange. We'll always have our mid 'aughts Teal and Orange.

Ha! I can imagine a wedding video made using the creepy doll montage from Man With A Movie Camera. The bride could be posed in various storefronts, ending with a scary doll that is riding a stationary bicycle using the bride's legs.

Most cameras covered here on EOSHD are for people that own their own gear on a tight budget and want to do as much as they can with cheap stuff. Pro cams like a C700FF are nice and all, but not the vibe of the website. It's confusing since the site is branded with "EOS," but that's a legacy quirk from the halcyon and heady Canon 5DII days. (woa, 10 years ago now) This site evolved with the market, while Canon somewhat abandoned low-end video. So, you have a website with a name that doesn't really jibe anymore, but that's the way it goes sometimes.

Yup. I don't know the OP from anything, and maybe I'm projecting from the wisdom of my own experiences, but the original question seems like a naive one on a few levels. Maybe I'm wrong! No offense OP. Hope you were successful!

Imho, this is the most straightforward and practical advice in the comment thread. Also telling in that it has nothing to do with the gear...which is typically the case on most successful projects. Wonder what happened with the OP's shoot.

I get the "false-equivalency" argument. I shoot M43 all the time. And, if you look reeeeeely hard enough, I do think you can tell a difference, in aggregate, between M43 and FF. The telltales of FF shooting can be evident if you know where to look. For instance, usually a smoother bokeh and sharper focus with shallow DOF. A f2 through modern glass on a FF sensor, for example, can look "cleaner" in a way that M43@f.95 does not. These advantages, I think, are nit-picky though. The differences are subtle. It's often really hard to tell! And if a skillful someone is shooting m43 with fast glass, you're probably not going to know the difference or pay attention enough to care in the first place. I'm shooting a doc right now with the Voightlanders on the GH5 and I'd put it up against anything I've shot with my FF Canon equipment. If you're shooting M43 or FF, your viewer doesn't really care. Are you a good shooter? That's what matters. All that said, and like I've mentioned before, I still prefer to shoot FF on a fast 50mm prime for interviews. It's just easier to set up a shot 'kuz of space and lighting --and you can really throw the background out of focus with a f1.2. That forgives a lot of sins in corporate locations/environments. Hey, I'm a practical guy. OTOH, when shooting interviews with my M43 gear I tend to use my 42.5mm lens @f1.2 --and the DOF is wildly shallow and intense too. The flatness of the "portrait" FOV is a nice look unto itself. One just needs more physical space in the room to make that happen. Also, you end up farther away from the interview subject, which can impair any intimacy if you're trying to create such a thing. My decisions tend to be less about opticals and much more about other considerations. Freeing your self from the dogmas of "this vs. that" with gear is a big step to make. I encourage everyone to make it ASAP.

I'd only get one if I was constantly doing corporate stuff and needed to make the client feel like they were getting their money's worth. That's a big "if," but I've been there. I hired a guy with a GH4 a few years back simply because he could make it look fancy. Matte box! Rails! Oooooooooo.

"hey guys...and if these tablets pleasest thou, yay, may thouest not forget to like and subscribe?" Anyway, Liam's a midwest guy, correct? DVD still goes a long way in the fly-over states, especially if you're angling towards anyone GenX or older. The thing you need to keep in mind is that if you're gonna go around and hustle your wares in the flesh, you have GOT to be good at it --and that means enjoying doing that sort of thing. If you don't like it, you're just going to be wasting your time.

Ummmm....

That's fair enough. I got seduced by early LUMIX cams and then Olympus IBIS. The kit size of smaller gear suits me. These cams work well for my jobs, but I do still have a soft spot for the FF cameras.

I use them for stills too. No complaints here. My Oly 2.8 pro lens does render a little more detail if one is pixel peeping, but nothing I've noticed to be remarkable compared to 2.8 on the Voights. Anyway, this is the most EOSHD'y of EOSHD topics. The great debate among camera nerds. As if sensor size one way or another really matters to people that actually shoot stuff that gets used for any real purpose. I mean, I have footage from my old XH-A1 that rivals most of the footage I shot this year. I certainly have my own preferences for shooting FF and like it, but ultimately it's not going to make a big difference on what is shot and deliver on a job.* Just curious, but aside from something needed in extreme low-light situations, can anyone here provide an example where what they did on M43 or FF would ultimately matter a hulluva lot to the client? *to the people I usually gig for anyway

Wide open I don't like so much. I typically set mine on a 1.4 - .95 split. That looks good to me. No doubt FF and FF lenses have a lot of advantages, (I exploit them myself) but it's not like one sensor option is wildly more impressive than the other.

As far as that goes, I used to shoot FD lenses on a cheap $100 Chinese speedbooster. I always liked the look. Clean but not pristine. If you want to get away from the "digital" look, that could be one ingredient in the recipe; worked for me. For those of you shooting manual glass it's an inexpensive way to go, FWIW.

They're great. I use the 25 and 42.5. I have a job coming up wherein I need to go wider FOV and I'll turn to the Voightlander brand yet again by buying the 10.5. When I'm shooting without Voightlander lenses I tend to look at that footage and say, "Meh." And, yeah, I'm invested now into M43 glass. Paying more in lenses for shallow DOF and M43 is annoying, but it is what it is. Still, I do love FF with a wide open (and cheap) fast lens for interviews. Low soft lighting with lots of bokeh and 3D pop. It's a look that's just special...and very easy to accomplish. So there's a pragmatic appreciation for it as well when one's trying to do a lot on a production with limited options.

!