fuzzynormal

If you want to access your American Netflix account overseas, use a VPN originating from the States. At the moment all these services use ip addresses to determine customer "location." So, tell them you're in NewYork when you're actually in New Deli.

Consider that the OP is right on target when he states that the AF100 is pretty much a glorified GH1. You can probably get a GH1 on Craigslist by battering a used pair of shoes. Seems to me camera geeks will ALWAYS debate specs. (nothing wrong with that) Creatives will go do interesting stuff. (nothing wrong with that) The wonderful thing about 2017 is that anyone that really wants to do something, well, the door is wide open. There's absolutely no technology barrier anymore.

This discussion thread is still going for a few good reasons. It touches on an important consideration in film-making. For instance, I made a short impressionistic travelogue film on the 5DMII 8 years ago. Shot it with one old 50mm prime lens. I think it looks great and I'm proud of it. The fact that it's Canon's ho-hum 1080p is not the reason that film is received well from my targeted audience. It's the material -- and the fact that what is there appeals to the viewer regardless of resolution. Also in my library is a simple corporate film from 2009 that used a XH-A1, shot on VideoTape, for goodness sake. The location was an Audi design studio. The place was illuminated like a giant soft box; looked great, featured a bunch of cool cars, and I made a bunch of weird creative choices in the shooting/editing. That little vid still generates work for me. Simply because of the brand name, content, and the overall look of the work. If we talk about what is really necessary, let's be sensible. It helps to consider that craft still carries the day. Always has and will. As it should. That said, I shoot 4k when appropriate. It's there to assist in the craft not define it. Seeing as this thread is over a year old, I can probably imagine I've posted the same thing on here months earlier!

Well, this ain't my experience. Granted, editing 4K h.264 natively isn't fun, so I avoided that, but.... My wife and I completed a six part documentary series this year for regional PBS. 6 30 minute docs shot on 4k with 2 GX85's. Edited in Premiere with proxies. I disagree that it's a troublesome post process. The tech side of things all worked easily for me (creative was a whole 'other thing) and would recommend to anyone dealing with large amounts of footage and wanting a simple workflow. Storage is cheap and the proxy file sizes are quite modest to create, store, and edit with. win-win-win. Slow and cheap hard drives work fine, so you can buy the inexpensive drives and build virtual RAIDS with 'em, no problem. 4TB hard drives are barely $100. That's $600 for 24TB. So, 12TB for working and 12TB for simultaneous RAID backup. 12TB will hold a lot of footage and proxies. I had 6 months of shoots on those drives. And my PC is pretty strong pushing numbers so the proxy transcoding was no big deal. Happens rather fast, actually. We even were able to edit with the proxies over LAN, so we had two edit seats working in tandem. One was the PC, the other was a 9 year old iMac. If anyone is interested in the geekier side of this cheap-o set-up, PM me. For me it was do-able and VERY practical. Keep in mind this was not a system for a fast-turnaround-daily-grind. Our doc series had the luxury of a long deadline. If you're trying to do something instantaneous you'd require something more robust. TV "broadcasting" stuff has more intense schedule requirements, so you'd need to pay for gear that can keep pace.

Ha. Think you might know more about American politics than the voters that live here.

I think the reason this is a popular thread on EOShd is simply because this is a nerd site for cheap cameras. We know, or want to know, the intricacies of techniques and equipment. What we do with these bits of info, if anything, is another matter altogether. I will say that, personally, the people I know and admire creatively aren't obsessively concerned with the nerdy tech stuff. They know enough to work and the rest ain't a big deal ---or trust others to carry that water. That's my world though. Yours might be different.

Not sure. I need implants though. Think he could get me a deal?

I wouldn't agree with that considering some of the RED footage I've had to deal with in my life! Anyway, it's all so subjective. I have a preference for trashy looking motion pictures because those are the kinds of film projections I grew up on. Others will have different ideas about stuff. I'm not an IQ snob, but it's okay of you are. Oh, and regarding the authorship vs. grammar metaphor from earlier in the thread: http://preview.tinyurl.com/ycpahrdn

Since this work looks great already what would be improved exactly by using a different camera? Maybe extra stops of DR or better color in some respects, but what would that really accomplish? Lensing, composition, cinematic craft are strong already in this example. Not being snarky here, truly interested at how images these days could be "3 times" better? Certainly cameras can have more IQ over others, but to what end? Would images in this sort of narrative be all that much discernible? (Unless you're doing some wild grade with RAW for more extreme effects) Aren't we to the point where it all looks good if you know what you're doing?

On the other hand, films like Kendy's get made and have the style they do and the energy they do in part because of the flexibility a small camera/minimal crew. IQ isn't a big deal to most lay viewers. As long as the sound is decent, the image doesn't have to be pristine. Anyway, it's all just tools. Pick the ones that gets you where you want to go. Some people WANT to move to "Video Village" and build a career there, others would rather run free with a GH1 and a single prime lens. There's no right or wrong answer.

FWIW, I have "misfire". It sort of works, but the results arent authentic to my tastes. Tweaking the parameters can get you sort of there, but I just never "felt-it" with that plugin. Yes. This is my experience as well. Since I was but a poor lad in my childhood, going to the 1dollar matinees at the second run movie house was my movie-world. Bad projection is "film" to me.

I believe you can find some static stock footages of old 8mm film online. Using that, it's not too much trouble to motion track the image and apply it to your own shots. This'll give you that old looking analog/mechanical image shift and jumping.

The skill set required to make things like this amaze me! I wish I had the capacity to be creative in this way. Y'all should be commended and rewarded for your efforts. Still, even though I love me some electronics, being a bit Luddite-ish when it comes to lenses and cameras is just in my nature. I'll take "simple-and-manual" over "code" for doing traditional photography things, like focusing. Fly-by-wire? No thanks. It reminds me of the apocryphal story of the NASA-difficult-to-develop-weightless-ink-pen vs. Soviet Space Program's lead pencil. Keep up the good work though! You're not making this stuff for old farts like me! https://youtu.be/-kHa3WNerjU

You need good audio and maybe some decent ND filters. Other than that, you'd be fine. Not sure why you think you need a slider, video head, stabilizer, or follow focus. I don't have any of those things and my productions work out okay for me. I've been "started" for 30 years now.

To each his or her own, but I feel I can do more with less. If I had a lucrative gig, no problem I'd certainly rent if that's what the client wanted. But for my own projects I'll keep the expenses tighter...I feel like I can get (realatively) comparable IQ from cheaper gear.

Matching is absolutely do-able, but I found it somewhat laborious in post when working with hundreds of hours of various footage. When the production is smaller, those considerations are not so important. I finished a big gig last year wherein I had to match from numerous cams/lenses and doing so under a time crunch...well, the results ain't pretty. If I'm working on my own projects and I'm going to can tons of footage, then my attitude is: "let's make it consistent from the get go and save the hassle in post." For me, that's a worthwhile investment and getting cam-pair/lens-pair is part of that decision..

It is an issue for me. Im part of a documentarian team that shoots, with my wife, an A and a B. As such, I'm frequently looking to rent or buy camera pairs and lenses. Typically, for our own self-financed films, I'll purchase the gear on deferred credit --and then re-sell the stuff 4 or 5 months down the road when everything is shot and in the can. The depreciation between the purchase and resell is what I consider my "rent" fees. Gear comes and goes this way and the cost of having the stuff while the work is happening is very reasonable. Cheaper and more flexible than actually renting. For instance, we bought another GH5 recently simply to pair with the initial one (purchased for another gig) and now we'll be using those GH5 cameras for the summer. Id love a bigger budget, eventually, to possibly employ this strategy for higher end cams such as the Canon C's, but the low overhead of the hybrid gear is effective for doing this sort of stuff on the cheap. Also, I like shooting doc video on a photo camera. I think it offers a certain comfort among subjects/people. It does often seem that they aren't indimidated by that as much as they are with "big" or "real" gear.

Make a great trailer, and I mean exceptional and compelling. I'm not talking about technical expertise, I'm talking storytelling. Make people interested in the things they see in that preview. If you feel you can't accomplish this on your own, get someone that can. When submissions come into our fest, it's super easy to see if a film has something to say, or not, based on the filmmaker's ability to present a worthwhile trailer. The preview is the first hurdle in a submission, so make sure you clear it. Also, I will say, based on what we do at our festival, if you acknowledge in your film synopsis that you are a film maker that will 100% attend festivals you're accepted to, that can help tip the scale a little. Thats for our festival anyway...others not so much. But again, know who you're submitting to and that will get you a long way.

I help run a festival. If a film is good and fits what we're looking for, no problem. The thing is, you really got to be honest about your film. Or, allow others to be honest about it. You better have a thick skin about that. A filmmaker needs to know the level his/her work is at and also if it fits the vibe of the festival they're submitting to. We shuffle through lots of crap that is obviously a ridiculous vanity project and/or has no business being sent to us because of what kind of fest we offer.

Yeah, with the GX85, there's a lot of good info in the highlights. FWIW, I just expose "normal" and take it from there. I like it okay too. For me, it's not the most useable camera I've had, but it's solid and will get the job done. It's a truck: utilitarian and incredibly useful. Sportscars are more fun to drive, sure, but you can't haul a load of wood in 'em. Sometimes, if not most times, you just need to haul wood.

Emulation is the initial step into developing craft. As it is with all endeavors that are creative. How artistic one is able to make things depends on the individual. Still, we all need a grasp of the craft to make the art. Some are good at it. Others? Not so much. Nothing new in that regard. This is why blogs about camera gear are far more traffic'ed than places where creative things are discussed. It's easy to dabble in the craft of things. Being truly creative and interesting is ridiculously hard-- not to mention emotionally vulnerable if you're doing it honestly. The "craft-vs-art-mix" is why I lean to making docs rather than narrative. I like to think I understand my abilities and limitations and angle my efforts in directions that are more appropriate for me.

I like the idea of doing current work with my 'ol hacked GH1 and a chinese-speed-boosted 50mm. That's, what, $250 for all that? Kinda wish I still had that camera...or had the nerve to stop buying new stuff and just be creative with what I got.

In this digital age can we start calling pixel-peepers nitpickers? Nice to carry along a little archaic etymology into our brave new world.

Did you use their version of proxies? What do they call it? "Optimized" or something. Last time I tried, it failed miserably which was too bad. I was eager and hopeful it was going to be my next platform. True. I think I hijacked the thread a bit talking about post-production and it went a little sideways. I believe my initial post was an agreement that most folks use 8-bit for faster working, so to compare this cam to other 8-bit cams is not unreasonable. Looks like a fine camera in all respects.

Resolve just didn't seem robust enough to handle doc film editing though. Hoping the newer versions get there, but it felt under baked the last time I was on it.