fuzzynormal

Yeah, I sold mine and kind of regret it.

I think I'll be jacking the vibrancy and color a bit; pushing it a little heightened of normal. A majority of the footage is landmarks, so skin tone isn't a priority.

Thanks for thew heads up. My wife is shooting mostly with X lenses these days and she's going to be in the field for the next few months. I'll tell her to be extra protective.

So I got an old client that has me doing some shooting this spring/summer. Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Saint Pierre/Miquelon, Gdańsk, and finally Tallinn. One of the interesting things about this tourism production house is that they've always demanded 60 fps video. This demand goes all the way back to the 1980's. One of the other things about this client is that they've NEVER done color timing/correction/grading in their productions. (unless I work on their edits, which is rare) They just take whatever is in the can and cut (well, more like gash) away. Anyway, I went ahead and got the GH5 for the upcoming gig so I could shoot 60p 4k. That part is covered. However, what about the color coming straight outta the camera? At this point with the GH5 I'm not going to be at all concerned about post-color-manipulation, LUTs, ETTR, 10 bit, blah blah blah. Nope, it's time to just bake it in from the get-go. I'd like to know any recommended settings for accurate vibrant color straight out of the kit. No muss, no fuss. Any thoughts? Anyone trying to accomplish the same out there?? Easy question that I could look up easily, but would appreciate hearing a "real-life" testimonial from someone with practical wisdom: What speed SD card is required for this?

Same issue as what swept though audio post production two decades ago. The power was suddenly in the hands of the people with digital DAW's and they couldn't mix frequencies for shit. ....and never mind their (or my) ability to actually compose something interesting.

It's visceral, literal, metaphorical, technical, and plenty of stuff in between.

Earnestness is awesome. It's such a blessing. Wish I had more of it.

Absolutely. It's so weird, of all things in the enthusiast/prosumer/motion picture world, that auto-focus is actually such a seemingly big issue to people all of a sudden. It's an embarrassment of riches across all brands and somehow AF is a deal breaker? Still not at all sure why folks aren't just okay with manually focusing their lenses like actual real-life camera operators that want to, you know, completely control capturing their images. I suppose it's all part of the 21st century digital algorithm world. Trust the machine to do the tricky work for us: Spell check our grammar, remember that one actor that played that one part in that one movie, tell us all the cool stuff we need to buy, remember how to drive home, and focus our lenses. F all that. This new fangled dangled nonsense is getting my dander up, you damn whippersnappers. The world needs more analog. You can "pry my manual lenses from my cold dead hands!" How about that? I'm complaining about the complainers! That said, I can see why AF handy, but I can't understand why anyone would trust it. At least when focusing manually your gonna get a consistent result.

If they're from WhiteCastle, I do. Nevertheless, as you can imagine (and see from the responses), the informal poll that initiated this topic reveals more about those answering the inquiry than it is about the actual video content. Again, no right or wrong about it. We all have our different things that we find interesting or not.

I don't know about that, but I do know that there's no basement at the Alamo. https://youtu.be/M8YApT-Eyn8 And then the guy that made these commercials then went on to run Apple computers. It's, like, all the same reality distortion field, man. It's full circle.

Well, his antics were ridiculous, but I think he was perfectly sane and just having a lot of silly fun at his audience's expense. He was so far ahead of the curve with wrastlin', for instance, it's quite amazing. Still, to this day, the best heel ever.

Well, like I said, I'm more of a luma guy, less a chroma dude. I'd much rather look at lighting that's dramatic than look at a flat over-lit scene with perfect colors.

When I took the "Pepsi Challenge" in the 1983, I chose Coke. Man, the college girl running the thing was ticked off. What can I say? I dislike cola in general, but the Pepsi was and just way too sweet.

Well, they can actually be mundane as well. Doesn't seem to matter. Personally, there's no way I would have ever had the foresight to be aggressively prolific in order to be essentially a modern day "motivational speaker" on social media, but it's working for him financially. He deserves acknowledgement for that. Ain't my bag, but whatever. That motivational culture seems odd yet enduring throughout the generations. I never willingly listened to dubstep either and a lot of young people made a lot of other young people famous and wealthy because of it. It'll be curious if the financial reality of this sort of vlogging work actually makes him fulfilled emotionally a few years down the road. That whole sort of career seems a bit 'ouroboros' to me...but, again, that's me.

My preferred cameras over the years have been Canon. But honestly, after awhile I thought the color skewed too much into the magenta. I've never disliked the Canon look, just maybe got bored with it? I know a lot of folks bitch about Panasonic, but I'm usually like, "eh, looks decent." Sony? Well, the complaints there are somewhat warranted. Although, when shooting in Asia I kinda thought the colors looked very acceptable. And ultimately, I confess, I'm a black & white sort of guy. Maybe because for the first 10 years of my image creation years I was playing around in the darkroom? I don't know, but most of my fav movies are B&W. Anyone that shoots can put in as much angst and effort into their color as they see fit. I acknowledge the desire of some to do so, but I find light and shadow more intriguing.

Cool answers. As mentioned, no right or wrong answers. I suppose it's a loaded question, sure. Technical accomplishment vs. an artistic one. I find it compelling because of my personal experiences. I mean, my main gig throughout most of my career (and still if I'm being honest) was mid-budget corporate stuff. So I did a bunch of things with decent gear, looked clean and slick, but was boring as heck. Myself, I find the goofy kid in Sundance more interesting as, to me, it has a sort of ramshackle Andy Kaufman satirization vibe to it. Also he has a unique "voice." he can take poorly shot video and manipulate the context of it to tell a curious story. Thus, it's not "bad" footage at that point. No small feat.

As a tangent: it's curious to me that it's referred to as "color-science" since the whole thing is so darn subjective, but that's just me being pedantic. I mean, there's chemistry involved in cooking, but we all consider an accomplished chef more akin to an artist than lab technicians, right?

So this is sort of an informal poll as well as a question. First, which film here do you find more entertaining and/or interesting? https://vimeo.com/212758265 https://vimeo.com/108018156 There's not a right or wrong answer, just curious about which y'all find more engaging. Now, regardless of which vid you chose, why did you choose it? And a final follow up, how do you think this sort of thing affects the future of the "industry," if at all. Cheers!

Yup. I have a few cameras that capably handle 90% of my work, but when I'm doing something more serious or particular, I'll rent what serves the need.

If one is using the same components, there should be no assumption that a Mac would last longer than a PC or visa-vera. Well, unless you are able to get some of that magic Apple pixie dust from a "Mac Genius" and sprinkle it on your computer. That should keep it going longer.

That's why I asked about what it would take to have a M43 lens that shot the equiv. of a medium format 45mm@f2.8. Seems like that's not really possible, right?

Well, as mentioned, Portuguese is Portuguese and Spanish is Spanish.

http://dofsimulator.net/en/: More DOF with a wider FOV. That's kind of nice, right? So there is an advantage of shooting medium format video.

What would a lens at that's 45mm F2.8 on a medium format camera need to be on a M43 cam in order to hit the same DOF equivalency? Or, how about a 80mm f1.9? Same question for those lenses to achieve similar DOF equiv. on a full-frame camera? Having exceptionally shallow DOF with a wide FOV while shooting motion pictures does create a cool effect. Kind of a 3D-separation-from-the-background-illusion...and then there's the subjective issue of bokeh --and also how big glass/focal plane light gets bent in that medium-format-way; as it needs to fall across a larger space. I don't know how to exactly explain it...is it sort of a parallax thing, maybe?

Eh, I just set up a page on VimeoPro. It's a simple template thing that shows a collection of clips and allows you to list contact info. Basic and clean.