fuzzynormal

If photos are a big chunk of the job, I say yes to that. I made a living for a while with the trusty Canon 24-70 f2.8 and a 5D. Flexible and easy. For my video productions, I prefer to stick to 1 prime as much as possible. I do like my stuff to look different. I also employ 360 shutter. Not many shooters do that. I'm sure a lot of pixel peeping folks would check out my work and find unforgivable issues with it. That's okay. Anyway, as such, take any of my advice with a grain of salt. What I like to do is probably a bit atypical.

I'm of the opinion that 1 focal length is not only perfectly adequate for certain docs, it can be preferred. It really creates a cohesive aesthetic. FF eq. of 50mm is my particular sweet spot. Thats me. I shoot for simplicity. OP is asking about making it small and light...well...

I luuuuv primes. Ain't gonna apologize for it. Dudes running around with zooms end up with stuff that look like it was shot by dudes running around with zooms. Too many focal lengths in a production; don't find that at all flattering. Fine for some fast-work stuff, but my personal efforts are always done on primes.

FWIW, I do all those types of videos too and I've been content minimizing my gear. It's now basically a GH5 and three prime lenses combined with Sennhieser's ew100 wireless audio system. I also have a DJI mavic, but don't use it too much. When I want to move the camera, I just walk. It all fits in one bag. Works for me.

For sure, consideration of BOAN as a vanguard film could be US-centric. Which is poetic. The US often is simultaneously spectacular and horrible. Still, what other films were happening in 1914 that were significantly defining the future of the genre? I don't really know very early Euro films. When did the Passion of Joan of Arc come out? It was much later, I think- a late 20's film? Same with Battleship Potemkin? And, yes, Citizen Kane is masterful, but it also had, what, three more decades of tech advancement and craft honing before it was made? To give an idea how BOAN is riviled and revered here in the States, look to 2016's "The Birth of a Nation" and how/why that film deliberately appropriated the title.

Yes, I'll confirm that my 1s recording issues are simply an issue of me doing a "double punch"

FWIW, I got a lumix (g85) that will occasionally just stops recording. No warning, rhyme, or reason. Worse, it doesn't save the clip! Unless I notice that it has indeed dropped the recording --and if I then turn the camera off and then back on, the clip miraculously is saved. And it's not a SD card issue. Seen this across various brands/speeds. Hardware issue?

Well, you have every right to ngaf about that movie. Unfortunately, it was the one that created a lot of the cinema vocabulary we still use. I suspect other films would've come along and done the same eventually. (Eisenstein really cranked it up a notch) It's too bad BOAN was that one to lead the way. In that regard I'm not sure you can say there were other films to reference. As you're aware, history is often defined with endless bad actors and disturbing human cruelty. It's truly a shame that early cinema has that stain, but nevertheless, there it is. BTW, that racist kkk culture was aggressively invigorated by the post civil war backlash of egalitarian reconstruction. Bad mojo feeding off a noble progressive effort. ...more examples of humanity's sad ying/yang dance. But if a shit cultural movie like BOAN can get made and we can scrape some goodness off it's shoe, better that than to pretend it never existed. I know you don't want to talk about BOAN, but I'm aiming at a higher concept. Indulge or ignore it, as you wish. BTW, take ear plugs to BR2049. Seriously.

As I see it, here are the similarities of BOTN and BR: both relied heavily on craft and offered other filmmakers "wow, you can do that?" moments. They were innovative in that way, so one pays attention if one is interested in doing film. Never ignore it. Ignoring stuff because it's uncomfortable or offensive is a horrible thing to do, just in general. Regardless, the pacing of BR2049 is, yes, atypical, but it's not a problem. Instead of asserting so much is hectic, why not look at the work that is most definately not? For example, we're in the golden age of television right now. Prestige TV rivals ultra-commercial film offerings -and often surpasses it in narrative quality. Competent TV shows, because if their serial nature, can take their time and build tension to a release. BR2049 invests into that aspect of storytelling craft too. Okay by me.

You're right, to clarify: I'm talking "content" in the current context of online everything. .... and "Birth of a Nation," which I really dislike, FWIW, as a movie that began to define the craft of the genre. Which it did. Even though it's racist crap. And you can show me Citizen Kane anytime. I'll watch it. To me, It feels like an American 70's or 80's movie with sophisticated special effects...

Well, I'd disagree with that. Sometimes cinema can be legitimate art work. Art, in my mind, should never be considered "content." Personally, I'll always segregate one from the other. Then there's the commercial element to all of it. People like CaseyNeistat make "content;" essentially video versions of corporate motivation posters for your cubicle. He's leveraging the tech and craft to make superficial stuff. Material to take up space in one's day, not necessarily anything to really require people to take it in, slowly digest it, or reckon with it seriously. That's fine, but it's not art. Certainly agree that taste, storytelling vocabulary, and the overall craft will always evolve. Technology typically allows a new spectacle, then artists are the ones to utilize the new technology to create elevated craftwork and then even artwork. Movies had "Birth of a Nation" and eventually films like "Citizen Kane" helped define the nomenclature of modern commercial cinema. And, honestly, speaking of blending craft/artwork, I still find "Man With The Movie Camera" ridiculously awesome, even better than almost everything I see these days, and it's been almost a century since it was made.

If all a viewer wants is plot movement, you could make 10 minute "features." Thankfully, it'll never be that for people that actually appreciate decent stories. You can't have a good complex story without narrative context. Otherwise its not storytelling, it's just "content."

Nice features, but also what Premiere does. Still, at least with FCP it's not a subscription.

How so?

Any power users want to convince me Resolve has got the strength to edit documentaries and handle all that media? I'm interested. I kinda gave up on FCP a few years ago, but can be swayed back there... JUST REMEMBER: feature length documentary. Anyone playing that game too? Curious to hear the feedback.

Well, in my case, my wife and I underwrite our own doc productions by doing corporate work when we can reasonably schedule it around other stuff -- then we end up with two cameras, in a camper trailer, and on the road. We do interviews of people that volunteer to be in the film for us. Very low overhead for making a feature length film. Now, if it was a bigger narrative thing, the expense would be a much different factor. But y'know, everyone's context is different. Which is why it can be an interesting question...

FWIW, my wife and I literally stumbled out of the theatre during the credits as the audio rumbles louder than an airliner take off. OTOH, I thought the shepard's tone (pretty sure I heard it) during some of the soundtrack was fun.

Well, I'm straight up ignorant then. Didn't even realize it was a 3D movie! And a standard screen for me. Old school.

On first blush, not great movie, but a really good movie. Kinda what I thought about with the original, but I was a wee bit younger and not as sophisticated with my judgment back then. As I grew with the film it grew with me too. As an old fart, that option doesn't exist with most films anymore, let alone BR2049.

It is, but great stories don't come along every day either. I haven't walked away from 2K, but I have walked away from a 1.5K gig. Weirdly, felt great doing it because of what I did instead.

That's the challenge of the question. Would you pass up the opportunity to tell an awesome story or take the easy cash and play with an awesome camera? Where does one's personal priority as a "filmmaker" lie? --especially the folks that comment here on EOSHD. I'm curious. For myself, up 'til a few years ago, the answer would be #2. Now, my perspective has changed. I've given up gigs to chase random stories. Also, my financial context has changed too. That matters.

Absolutely... This is honestly a serious "what would you really do?" question. It's very much NOT a "what do you think the right answer is?" sorta question. If you need money, then the answer is #2, for sure. Or, if you're a technical guy, and love playing with gear rather above all else, #2 is a perfectly fine answer.

You already own a camera that shoots 12 stops of dynamic range, but you are offered, gratis, to use a premiere industry camera that shoots 16 stops of dynamic range. With the first camera you have the real potential to capture a compelling story that makes your audience laugh, cry, and empathize with a subject they never imagined they would care about. You get paid nothing. With the second camera your job is to shoot a corporate speaker delivering a powerpoint about 3rd quarter margin calls. You would make $2K for the day. Both situations are happening simultaneously. In which scenario would you decide to work?

Yes. I, random stranger on the internet, affirm that you made the correct camera purchase for yourself. Congratulations. You are awesome. Now go make something interesting with it.

If you want shallow DOF and a vintage look on stuff out of a cheap 3ccd, you can always just pick up an old Letus35 lens adapter. Seriously. Man, that'll take the edge off, give you nice motion cadence, and look cool doing it. Goofy way to go, but it works. What you're alluding to is a real and interesting dilemma. With even consumer cameras/lenses looking pristine and wonderful, and everyone has 'em, what does one do to differentiate --but still have something that looks nice? Personally, I absolutely want my IQ to have flaws. It fits the sorts of stories I like to tell. Ramshackle and shabby a little, but still well crafted. Slight chroma aberration on the edges of frame? A smidge of ignetting? Check and check. I want the viewer to sense that what they're watching is not "normal." Thank goodness for the legacy flaws of 24fps! Now, when I do corporate stuff, I slap on my OlyPro lenses @f4 and 60fps. Otherwise, let's keep other stories in visual dream-land.