fuzzynormal

You gotta do you, man --and make it work however it works in your mind's eye. If that involves loads of theory or putting things into reckless practice, that's your call. You're self-assured as to what kind of process is good for you. FWIW, guys like me would (and probably could) not work in a very structured sense. I like reckless and organic, for example. The creative process is subjective, so there's no way to assert a singular answer on how to do it. These are suggestions. Not answers... but Brandon Li... yeah, you can trust that guy.

This is going to sound counter intuitive to someone new to the process of making docs, but I would advise that you consider shooting your entire production with one 25mm prime lens. A singular lens choice will limit your bad judgment regarding grabbing variable focal range shots (rookie mistake) and keep everything looking cohesive. Again, maybe it sounds like a bad idea, but really consider it. That simple choice can do wonders for the style and look of your film. Also, someone posted a "cliff-notes" kind of video yesterday about all the fundamentals needed to make shots look cinematic... here it is: https://youtu.be/rk6Cpe3KG8M The info is brief, but it really is kinda all there.

Olympus 5-axis stabilization is a lot better than Panasonic. The GH5's is nice, but it doesn't compete with what I was used to on my EM5II. Having great IS, while cool, is not something I really look for when making certain documentaries. It's not a bad thing for the camera to have some kinetic energy going for it. I like Cinéma-vérité. If a filmmaker appreciates that sort of movement, then superior IS isn't a big consideration. However, an Olympus IS camera paired with an Olympus OS lens it's sort of crazy at how it can smooth stuff out. Depends on the look you're going for. Since the OP is already an Oly guy, he should just stick with it. Not only is it an awesome stills camera, but the EM1MII is 4k and has great colors. If you want a nice lens to shoot interviews, the Voigtlander f0.95 will offer shallow DOF on m43. I prefer the 42.5mm for interviews, but the 25mm is good too. It'll give you plenty of exposure to work with in low-light too. It's not perfect wide open, but the image is still good and useable, IMHO. Unless you're wanting to shoot in absolute darkness as cleanly as possible, then I guess consider the Sony's. Lighting wise, at since you can shoot low-light these days with any camera, look at two really small battery op LED's and something like this guy: https://photographyandcinema.com/products/d-fuse-softbox With two LED's and ambient light, putting together a nice 3-point-lit interview shot is simple and easy. To keep audio compact and easy I'd recommend the Sennheiser ew100 wireless lab straight into the camera. I'm not a fan of shotgun mics mounted to the camera, but if you NEED that ambient room audio it can be helpful. Personally, I'd rather isolate my subject's audio as a priority...but that's only if you're focusing on a single subject. Other needs require different solutions.

Give Germain Lalot a GH5 and a compelling subject and he'd make another film just as good, no question. One things for sure, his footage of Vanuatu is ridiculously better than the SD footage I shot while I was there in 1999!

Does it need it? The OP is kind of a hypothetical question to begin with. Maybe the conversation should be meandering.

I've traveled to over 60 countries. There are rual neighborhoods in my home state of Michigan that easily match the shit-hole-ness of the third world.

I don't disagree, but for a neophyte why not get out there and be creative first, let the solutions follow the ideas? I did my time to learn the craft tech stuff back in the day. Loved doing so. But also had visual ideas, wondered what was the best way to do 'em, analyzed other stuff that was similar, then did the same. BTW, these suggestions are all for folks that are doing it for themselves, not being paid. You best have a clue if someone is giving you a check. That's just being polite and a decent human being. If you suck at something, don't take someone's money. On the other hand, they're really not THAT more expensive than impressive old glass and boosters...especially in the 25mm range -- They're smaller, and they do look really good stopped down @f2. As you know, good glass is good glass. You pay for it.

They're okay. I have the 25mm and the 45mm specifically for shooting a doc I'm working on. Those are the two focal lengths I'm using for the whole film. Basically I got 'em for the low-light capacity and shallow DOF during interviews. Yes, they're better than an old f1.2 Canon and a speedbooster...but not by much. In fact, I find the flaws of boosted old glass rather awesome, tbh.

Sure, you can do that. If you want to be awesome at making cat videos. (Street scenes are hardly ever awesome) If that's what you want, no problem. It's fine. If you really want to make films and movies however, TRUST ME: Do. Not. Wait. Just go do it and try your hardest. Don't let ignorance about technical details slow you down. To hell with ignorance. A little naïveté can be a blessing! Never think you can't accomplish a scene or shot simply because you don't have the best "x" on the market. Compelling stuff can be made with the "y" stuff you already have. The simple ambition to go out and make real stuff will leap frog you over everyone else on the planet playing with their cameras rather than being filmmakers with their cameras. I don't know. Maybe you just want to experiment with gear. Most here are the same, including me. All I can tell ya is that in filmmaking solutions follow creativity and not as often visa versa. All that said, start with a cheap LUMIX M43 cam, a cheap Chinese speed-booster, and three cheap f2.8 manual prime lenses. 24mm, 50mm, 85mm. --Outboard audio recorder with a decent boom mic (and operator), and a modest collection of Aputure LED lights. That's more than enough and more powerful imaging equipment than most of the masters of cinema from the mid-20th century had at their disposal.

Find a scene in a movie that you really like... and that is generally regarded as a legitimate cinematic achievement. I'd suggest a talkie scene from an earlier Kurosawa film. When you really see how subtlety in angles, camera motion, and blocking work, it's a revelation. Break it down shot by shot. (Or maybe it's single shot!) Analyze the light, the motion, the focal lengths, the acting, the blocking... ...and recreate it with a small crew and cast. I think emulation is a great way to quickly learn the techniques and craft. All this nonsense about the technical nuances of modern hybrid cameras is not going to matter until you grasp the fundamentals. hot tip: and when you master the fundementals, the camera and/or specific lens choice matters even less than "normal." --and it's very minimal to begin with. Youre not going to be solid out of the gate, but failure is learning. Also, once you start filming your scene, get off the Internet completely and concentrate on what you're trying to do.

I don't doubt your results. Panny's IS ain't perfect and frustratingly unpredictable at times, (I've found their dual IS disappointing) but wanting it to work flawkessly on a gimball is a false expectation, I think. IS is designed to handle shake as the camera remains stationary. If you move the camera around the acceleration/deceleration momentum can cause dramatic shifts as the IS makes over corrections. This is typical with Olympus IS as well, which is generally considered the best available.

This thread is insane.

I run it hot, actually. However, on my next interview with the ew100 receiver, I dialed the output db down -3 more and did like that audio better. The internal GH5 input is set at -12. I've had trouble in the past with hybrid-camera pre-amps being noisy/hissy if the signal is too thin. FWIW, if the audio clips a little bit (emphasis on little) in places I tend to correct that in post with iZotope's audio Rx. Granted, this is far from an ideal solution, but I've decided running slightly hot on the input is preferable to the alternative, which is too much noise on voices that can go quiet during emotional moments. Anyway, this is a similar issue I've delt with across brands/cameras. When I'm doing mission critical work I use an external recorder anyway...or hire a sound guy. moral of the story: just use better stuff when you need a better result. Right now I'm dabbling in a no-budget personal project, so it's not demanding.

To be clear, no pun intended, the title if the thread is: "The GH5's audio sucks balls both with and without a mic" --and this clip is with a mic. The Sennheiser ew100 lav, actually. Its running directly into the mini plug mic input on the GH5.

Here's an example I shot today. Judge for yerself if you think it's decent enough: TEST_.mp4

It's certainly not crazy to be meticulous and try your best with what ya got. But on a website for aspiring filmmakers, but mostly hobbyist, it makes sense that attention is applied a little too much to a single thing, the camera. Many here are locked into what cameras do or don't do because, perhaps, they don't need to have a well-rounded approach to a production. Also, it's just fun to talk about technical crap. For me, the more important things are not camera specific. As you know, I love playing with cameras, but to funnel the majority of my attention through what apiece of gear can or can't do can be distracting. (unless that was my specific job) Sometimes, for instance, a good prop and production design is more integral to success than whatever sensor you happen to be using. Blocking, lighting, cinematography...um, the actual acting...one's ability to be a decent director...so much more important on a narrative. If you got yourself or a crew that excels in that, you'll be fine regardless of what you're shooting with. Interestingly, I think camera/sensor/lens decisions might be MORE important these days on documentary, where controlled situations are not part of things and the crew is very minimal.

Hey, I saw this at the cinema...so what are we really worried about? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCdRFMp8Xwo

Man, I love how hobbyist and non-pros are equipped way better than me! --a guy making a living at this stuff. I don't know. I find that sort of cool in a way.

What's about "Occam's Razor"? Why or why not for some of this stuff? Thoughts?

Don't misunderestimate the power of Asia KFC.

I think this is a very viable model and good info. The thing to realize here too, is that the movie is okay, nothing special at all; meandering and narratively frustrating, but it's about a thing people are curious about, so they're willing to drop a few bucks on it. These sorts of niche markets are everywhere. Also, FWIW, I talked with the producer of this film earlier this year, https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/first_girl_i_loved/ and he was very encouraging about the self-distribution/marketing paths that currently exist for smaller films. The cliff note gist of that chat was essentially: "DIY niche online marketing with a budget" -- and, if you have a decent product, that'll generate enough sales to get things into the black. His essential sales avenue for that flick is iTunes.

I used the EM5II for walking around street style shooting. Loved it. Learned to work well enough with the IBIS to mimic dolly shots. It's truly great for grabbing b-roll on the move that looks like it's not handheld footage.

Not particularly interested for myself. However, I think it may have a market. For instance, as a kid growing up near Detroit, I've always felt that car companies that are willing to create premium models of their product were ahead of the game. You'd lust after a GT40 and admire it, knowing you'd never own it, but respecting the Ford brand because it could make something so bad-ass. Besides, if cameras can have a enthusiast's marketplace, why not stuff like this?

Bastards.

"Two Shits and a Popsicle" is my next t-shirt.