fuzzynormal

I like IBIS for run-n-gun-handheld standard talking head corporate work. Takes the edge off footage and makes it palatable for clients.  I also abuse the hell out of slow-mo for corporate work.  For instance, stuff like this:

I definitely don't like it for more cinematic work.  Shot one of my latest docs with it and I was, like, "Nope, not doing that again."

AF? I don't care to worry about it.  Manual focusing just looks cool and I'm half way decent with pulling it, so I'll stick with MF.

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Big shift to personalities, clickbait, TV style content, away from magazines, articles, blogs. Shift to Facebook groups instead of forums. Shift to phones instead of laptops. It all encourages a lower quality of discourse and content. The shills and PR industry completely control the popular influencer scene which in itself gobbles up 90% of the attention ...It is a dreadful state of affairs.

Modern culture is in a bit of a vortex with this, I think.  It's not just cameras.  Society has to figure out if it can evolve beyond this somehow --or if the majority of us are perfectly fine with being sophisticatedly exploited by our corporate overlords.

I still visit forums because that's my comfort zone.  It's a form of interaction built upon years of usenet and also the communal gee-whiz-ness of personal computers from back in the day.  But, hell, I was born in the 60's, man.  I lived in a different world. 

Your earlier metaphor is apt.  Some of us like a novel, but most people prefer a photo pamphlet. 

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Is the general topic of cameras and video in decline?

Sure is. 

We had the renaissance just over a decade ago and now we're finally in a different landscape.  In the early 'Aughts consumers really couldn't make cinema level image quality.  I mean, the best we could do back then was rig up those goofy lens adapter machines and film a rotating disc capturing light from vintage lenses with a camcorder.

The Sea-change unfolded starting with the 5DII and it was always a wild ride.  Now?  Damn near everyone has a pretty awesome motion picture imaging device.

I know for myself I'm actually retro and like to play with things well behind the bleeding edge.   For instance, there's not a lot of people in general that would be interested anymore in me hacking another GH1 like I did last week, but in 2010?  Man, that would launch a thread of a 1,000 responses.

I'll use whatever I think delivers what I want.  

The market is the market and it'll probably fragment the photo/hybrid cam segment by shifting demand, but that's been ongoing, as mentioned.  

Honestly, I'm playing with tools I never really thought I'd have easy access to, so I'm good with whatever moving forward.

7 hours ago, IronFilm said:

"reflecting" 

To use that word and not take advantage of the pun, I guess he wasn't kidding when he said he didn't know much about lighting.

4 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh, I think the G7 was one of the best m4/3 cameras ever made

Same sensor as the GX7?  'Cuz that's really my favorite.  I lost that camera and regret it to this day.  I should buy another one just so I can put it on my shelf and smile at it.

Another tip: if you can find a spot with space, it gives you some flexible filming options. 

Here's a bunch of shots from a very unsophisticated talking head video I made last year.  Shot it in 3 hours.  We only had 1 location for 9 people.  Had to make the setting change visually from interview to interview to interview just to break things up.

Did some adjustments to the back ground light and camera angle between sit-downs.  Quick and easy.  The two lights being used on the interview subject never really changed.  A small softbox front key and a backlight was it, ambient through window blinds was my fill.  Just shuffled the variables and tried to get different looks. 

Ultimately, it doesn't take a lot to do a lot.  And, as said, I always, always, always start with killing the room lights.  See what you get, then continue.

Finally, here's my biggest dumb tip of all if you want to shoot something faster than you actually should:  Rotate 360 and try to find the light that allows the subject to be a few stops above the background.  Aim to achieve that visual separation.  Hold out the back of your fist at arms length, squint really hard, and get a sense if that's happening. 

For instance, if you're holding your fist in front of a window, it's going to be a silhouette, rotate yourself 180 and your fist is most likely going to be the opposite, right?  Rotate another 30 degrees and you might actually start to see some interesting 'light-moulding' starting to happen.

Anyway, it's pretty easy to start seeing light in your work spaces once you know what you're looking for.  It doesn't have to be some esoteric maths formula (even though it can be).  Just a smidgen of wisdom and practice can get you through.

37 minutes ago, FHDcrew said:

They never seem to talk about all of these subtleties that I’m beginning to see a glimpse of. 

I'm also a big fan of getting subjects as far away from any walls as possible.  Depends on what you're doing, but that's a neat subtlety.

I've had clients ask me as I move them to the opposite end of the room (so there's a ton of depth behind 'em, while I'm scrunched in a corner with my camera), "What are we doing over here"?

"The light is really nice here and you're looking awesome"

Yeah... I'm always always always looking for depth.  I really don't like it when a videographer makes an already small room look smaller.

On 6/29/2022 at 5:26 AM, FHDcrew said:

You think that’s just random differences in how the light is bouncing?

Yes.  Study how photons do their thing.  Even look at renaissance art. Seeing light, which you're starting to do, is the only way to get a handle on it.

I just hired a shooter to do a gig and talked to him about everything required on the shoot, including turning off the practical lights and utilizing natural light entering through the windows and controlling the subject's location to maximize the look to his advantage.  In one ear and out the other.  He left the florescents on.

Footage looks like shit.

Actually, keeping light "small" is important to me.  I like filming and lighting with maximum dimness, or at least having the light go through room in an interesting way.   I also like taking the camera sensor and lens f-stops to the edge of their capabilities so the room can be darker.  All this allows for more interesting light falloff and controls the ambient if you're running anfd gunning.

Some of the best footage I ever shot was with a 1" CCD, so these little camcorders can certainly do the trick.

1 hour ago, kye said:

Most festivals I've seen operate behind-the-scenes using a dozen or so categories, normally like this:

• Film that the judges happened to like
• Another film that the judges happened to like
• The next film that the judges happened to like
• A film that the judges happened to smile at
• Some other film that the judges happened to smile at
• That strange film that the judges happened to enjoy
• A film that the judges happened to laugh at
• The film that the judges happened to think was cute
• The film from the people the judges know
• The film starring the person the main judge is sleeping with
• The film directed by the person one of the judges wants to sleep with
• Judges choice

Astute.  However, at least in our festival the selection committee and the judges aren't the same folks.  So we have a smidge of integrity there.  But yeah, a lot of them still definitely judge on thematics, not craft.

24 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

I feel it is important to specialize. Be that was a Gaffer, or DoP, or Sound Mixer, or Grip, or whatever. 

We're on a camera forum, so of course we're going to obsess over the pros/cons of a P6K Pro vs a C70! Or the Sirui vs SLR Magic anamorphics. 

We're not going to be discussing on the merits of using Walmart's own brand of foundation vs using Maybelline's foundation. (but if you're a MUA, then yup, you think about that, and might use something different depending on if it is the Lead vs an Extra)

This morning I spent a bit of time thinking about if I getting a Lectrosonics 200 series plug on transmitter is worth the cost savings vs a Lectro UH400A / HM ? (brief answer: if a UH200D? Yes, maybe. Anything else? Definitely not) But that type of minutiae level discussion about sound is not what I expect to see on EOSHD, that's what goes on over at JWSOUND instead. (well, except I couldn't find anything worthwhile over there discussing in the past the UH200D, as even for them that is too niche/old. Hoped to have better luck at R.A.M.P.S. but drew a blank there too)

 

Each individual piece of minutiae obsession is unlikely to make any major impacts, but when you add up dozens of these 1% improvements, then add up every crew person also striving for these 1% gains (which hopefully they're all doing, as they're all specialists in their crafts striving to be the very best), then you're seeing some huge improvements overall for the film itself. 

 

You're absolutely correct.  I'd add you're definitely better positioned as a specialist to maintain a successful career than I am as a one-man-band-guy.

On 6/26/2022 at 5:41 PM, kye said:

In terms of making good films, I think that the image is actually one of the least important aspects, contrary to the camera-television industrial complex and social media echo chambers.

Said this here before but...

As someone that's on a film-festival selection committee with a bunch of joe-lunchbox-folks, it becomes very obvious what floats their boat.

Horribly or lazily crafted films with a theme they like get the thumbs up while beautiful films with challenging material gets ignored.  They can watch stories that look incredibly lame but if they dig the film's message they'll be totally into it and forgive so much.  So, so, so much.  You all would probably get upset seeing how tolerant they are of bad craft.

So as it was, so shall it always be.

That's not to say us low-budget video folks shouldn't strive for a higher level of craft, but these minutiae levels of refinement shouldn't necessarily go before the bigger design, y'know?

I mean, 3 extra stops of DR is nice, but if you're shooting a shitty script or boring documentary ...what's that DR really doing for ya aside from self-edification (which is okay, btw, if that's all you want).

There’s a theory that says conflict to attain creativity is something that actually enhances creativity. 

Limitations get the creative juices flowing.  

If you want to dive into the whole evolutionary benefit of this phenomenon, you can mull that over too. 

Since movies are supposed to be a magical representation of our reality, there's always going to be a place for B&W.  The lack of chroma makes it inherently unique and other-worldly.  Because there's not as much visual data as with color, the frame focuses the viewer's attention to other aspects of the image.

If you like cinema, it's really hard not to like what B&W gives you.

I'm biased, I guess, because I've always been a fan of old movies and my dad let me use his darkroom when I was a kid.  Developing cheap B&W film was quick and easy.  Shooting a roll a day with a high-schooler's part-time-work wages was doable -- and a ton of fun.

2 hours ago, kye said:

a parallel world of people who worked evenings and nights and weekends and they all just hung out with each other

Yeah, that’s what I did. Was a small player in a silly bar band as a hobby outside of the gigs. It was nice.
 

I knew punching a clock 9-5 wasn’t going to be a future I’d be comfortable with, so I walked away from that in my twenties and went freelance.  
 

Feast or famine ain’t for everybody with employment, but as a single guy with always a little bit of savings it wasn’t too hard to manage.

Also, I had some exciting clients that really enriched my life… the places on this planet I’ve been is kind of bananas. No regrets in that regard. 

At this point I’m an old dog and the new tricks of modern media creation are simply mediocre expectations rather than the “gee-wiz that’s cool” impressions that I could deliver in the past. 
 

Sure is interesting to see an entire profession move beyond one’s capabilities. 

On 5/30/2022 at 9:13 PM, webrunner5 said:

Pro trip, if you are fucking good enough you hardly ever have time for new clients, and even if one leaves plenty standing by to have you. If you can't get to that point in a few years find a different way to make a buck.  You sleep a lot better when you are good at something. You can charge more and not have to kiss ass to get it.

I suggest changing professions every once in a while anyway. Life gets boring as shit doing the same stuff over and over. Not really a challenge after awhile either.

Damn. I’m in trouble!

1 hour ago, newfoundmass said:

Not everything needs to be CLEAN and PERFECT.

My favorite doc I’ve ever made was on handheld LUMIX cams without stabilization. 

Man, I’ve gone so far as to hire a separate crew to shoot “a” cam with all the video-village gak —while I run around looking all unassuming, just doing my thing and getting 90% of the video used in the edit. 

4 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Set shutter speed to 1/100 (180 degree) because I shoot 4k 50p.

Indoor or outdoor after dark, no ND.

Indoor daylight, ND 2-5 by default at 2.

Outdoor average day, ND 2-5.

Outdoor super-bright day, ND 6-9.

Then to control exposure, from a technical viewpoint, I use the waveform scope, but mostly my eye because as someone who does not at this time shoot log, if it looks right on the back of the S1H screen, it is right. Or as close as it needs to be, ie, I am looking to get it right as poss in and SOOC.

 

Same here.  Run-and-gun doc and corporate vids.  Often at f1.8'ish.  If it passes the eyeball test, then I'm good.  Variable ND is a blessing and a curse though.  VND causes it's own issues...but it's a worthwhile tradeoff.

On 4/5/2022 at 12:03 PM, webrunner5 said:

we are Never going to do what they do to get that look.

Oh, I don’t know. They mention in the article they were getting their “look” 90% in camera and their colorist/grader was creating the last 10% in post. 

90% ain’t bad. 

Their earlier film “Let Me In” was visually impressive on a modest production scale. 

Talented and tenacious young film makers are doing amazing work with modest gear.

Source: help run a film fest, seeing a handful of micro budget films making high end visuals happen. 

7 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

The footage on the main board has always been discussed lifely and with lotta enjoyment.

For me it would feel out of sorts to put footage examples in part of the forums not made for it.  However, if doing so offered a better opportunity for feedback, why not? 

The problem would be, wanting feedback of technique rather than sensor choice...

Also, my footage is B&W, so color grading discussion would be out cutting down significantly on the amount of people that would engage.

That's the dilemma in general, which is what I was on about regarding forum shift.  Interest would nose dive in this website once talking about gear is secondary to the process.

People want to talk gear, not ideas.

Stories, man.  They just circulate and we all ingest 'em and spit them out again.  You mention the themes of "Taxi Driver," but certainly, for me, there's a lot of "Network" in what you're going for.

Regarding your potential production: as someone that's just put myself through the wringer on a short, definitely don't bother wearing too many hats.  Protect your writing by being nuanced with the performances and directing the actors.  My wife and I missed a ton of subtleties in real time that missed the proper tone on set --those overlooked moments were glaring in the edit.

This is very limited wisdom, but it's what I got.

Additionally, when you get past a few drafts I'd certainly recommend doing a proof-of-concept scene or two to help you shake things out, reset, and re-strategize before you really get into it.

Also, I appreciate your idea to change your online presence from gear review to movie review.  I'm sure you know that means your online space will decrease traffic in multitudes, (look at how anemic the "footage" section of EOSHD has always been) but I'm guessing you look at that being a blessing rather than a curse!

The paranormal thing is amusing to me.  

A decade back or so in my hometown there was a rapper/filmmaker that would go around to different regional neighborhoods and make docs about places that were "haunted".  Some rural and some urban.  Didn't matter.  He'd just make these haunted films. All were horribly crafted.

In the middle of it all one of his co-producers approached me for advice.  They wanted to make the films technically better.  After explaining what they'd have to spend in time and money to do that, they (rightfully) said, "The hell with that" and kept making the films their way.

He'd then hype the hell out of whatever film he had just made.  He's instinctually good and marketing --and there's always and endless supply of people desperate to believe in the afterlife.  Thousands upon thousands of of people would go to his screenings.  He'd sell out 1,700 seat old-school movie houses.  They'd buy his DVD's and his other merch.  He did this year end and year out, eventually parlaying the shtick into a producing gig with a major studio.

The dude was ahead of his time, but maybe the time eventually just came around to him?  Or maybe our culture is what it is.  Worked for Barnum too.

Don't know...whatever hustle mojo the rapper guy made work for him is remarkable.  God bless him, he made a career out of it!

All that's just to say that American filmmaking is ultimately a commercial endeavor, quality be damned -- even though some art does comes out of it occasionally.

Eh.  I'm rambling.

In 2021 My 5 year old nephew made almost the same money doing videos on YouTube than I made doing videos for clients.  That's true.

So, there ya go. 

I've thought very hard about whether or not I should try and do some sort of production for YT monetization.  I've decided I'd rather not.  I'm just not interested in chasing that stuff. I don't have any passion for it.