fuzzynormal

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.

Well, yes, of course they should. You should be absolutely entitled to dictate the free laborious direction of talented strangers. You're obviously a very special person that deserves to have their every wish granted, your laundry done for you, a hot bowl of mac 'n cheese served on the dining room table, and your jammies laid out for you before beddy-bye each and every evening.

Not sure any camera in this class has mic input, but... If you like the flexibility of using different glass on a body, there is a decent pocket option. For a long time I used the Lumix GM1 for "low-profile" doc film shooting. Man, it worked great. It's very stealthy. No one assumed I was doing anything worthwhile when filming with that camera. Also, when I was on the road for myself as a tourist, it also became my most used travel camera. I even had a small set of A110 Pentax prime lenses for it. https://youtu.be/EyBGPzNzGog?t=6m27s The GM1 (and slightly larger GM5) is discontinued, but Panasonic now makes a similar model (slightly larger) that shoots 4K. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1304864-REG/panasonic_dc_gx850kk_dmc_gx850_micro_four_thirds.html If 4k ain't a big deal, you can get the GM1 used for $200-$300 on ebay. Man, you got me wanting to buy that camera again...

Yeah, from what I understand, that's really the shortcut to it all. Just build with the same components used by Apple and you're more or less good to go.

Customs limbo. Been there and done that way too many times. Here's a frustrating word: "Carnet" If you don't know what that is, be grateful.

You don't have to sort through all that to understand where quality content is originating. Also, algorithms do the heavy lifting, humans then work through the smaller samples. As noted, that's why I think human curation will be a luxury service in the near future. Because it's time consuming and of value. When everything's an ocean of information, those that offer you a chance to wade into a clean heated pool where you're nice and comfy...well, that has high worth.

Yup, I'm definitely with you on that as well. I'm just not eager to stretch my ISO that much. I mean 800, a fast lens, and slower shutter will easily expose a face lit by a small campfire. That's pretty dim. And any camera made in the last two years will more or less give you that ability. Scenarios that are darker absolutely exist, but if you have a choice, best to try to avoid such settings. Running 6400 ISO simply because you want to stay at a relatively slow f4 seems silly and wholly counter-productive to me. If you know you're consistently going into the dark, I'd certainly suggest making other gear decisions. Such as just getting a low-light-high-performance camera like an A7s.

True, but it's easy to see why those doing the serious bigger buys should expect that their ad placements get the human curated treatment. It's really the same crap you see from the TV model. "Prestige" ads are attached to prime time while the lousy trashy ads get relegated to 3am. Google in general wants things to be as algorithmic as possible as it's more profitable for them, but as all society becomes so tightly integrated to the internet, I think intelligent human curation is going to have to be a much bigger part of the process; expect services that cater to this need to be the next big luxury in life. Or, in the distant future AI is developed for such commercial pandering --and our new robot overlords destroy us slowly by indulging our vices.

My thought is that we all fall into the roles we decide for ourselves. If you like playing with camera knobs, you focus on that. If you'd rather tell a story, you focus on that... and lots of values in between. For instance, trying to break away from my established ( read: lazy ) career path is not easy. Essentially, my time has been spent being a passable craftsperson, but not a terribly impressive creative. So to switch priorities is difficult. Having the confidence to actually tell a worthwhile story, develop an interesting cinematic voice, and shape the tone of stories with wise choices is so much more demanding than figuring out colors of skintone, you know? Because of that, falling back into thought processes that are a distraction from successful storytelling happens because dabbling with the tech is more comfortable. ( after all, look at my writing here ) So, to be fair, kids doing "content" are often just trying to figure stuff out -- while meanwhile so much of "content" is not exactly narratively creative. Sort of a double whammy, that. Those that truly have an itch for telling stories should eventually get there, but you're right, it's easy to go sideways with tech and lose sight of a more interesting career. That's my anecdotal experience for sure.

I focus manually, like a real man.

On the other hand, doing work-for-hire can be a creatively unrewarding slog too.

With current camera sensitivity across all brands you wouldn't have to. If the ambient light "floor" is decent for what you require, then you can concentrate on using small simple elements for moderate fill. I do this often with my documentary production. Every situation is different though. And other shooters have different tastes in lighting. Ironically, I'm more of a minimalist/naturalist. But knowing what's needed or might be needed is the main thing. For example, more than a few people here on EOSHD use modest implements and make it work. I used to be in a shitty bar band and I used to do video production for it as well. Often I'd work with the venue to adjust lights on hand. Without fail they were always positioned wrong and set to unflattering angles. With only a little tweaking and collaborations with the bar we could usually improve it. Assuming they tolerated my input and modifications. The main thing was typically keeping the illumination variance under control and creating useful pools of light for the singer and band members. The other big thing was to avoid direct key. Anything straight on ruined the vibe. The lighting had to still have some drama to it.

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they? I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.

Guess I mis-read then. Compromises are certainly a decision of priority regarding what to do. I'd say that raising ISO is low on my priority list. As I mentioned, I shoot docs, so I find myself in dim situations often. I like to go with faster lenses to compensate. Nothing wrong with having a good low-light camera either, (soft gentle light can play very dramatically) but my point is that utilizing light in a wise way is fundemental to capturing images. Assuming that just using a more light sensitive camera is the panacea for shooting would be a mistake. Now, all that said:

Well, I'd say run and gun docs might lead you into situations that have dark corners...but even so, I've rarely gone over 1600 myself. At the very least one should carry a lens for those low light situations along with some modest small rig for supplemental lighting. It doesn't take much. A tiny LED would throw enough photons to add interesting rim/side light. After all, a f.9 and a LUMIX camera is pretty competent in low-light up to 1600. It'll capture pretty clean in a very dim room under those parameters. But, seriously, if you have advanced knowledge going into a setting, you should be able to analyze the light, develop a strategy to handle it, and keep it controlled for your gear. (not even saying you HAVE to do lighting, but you should understand it) Otherwise, WTHeck are you exactly doing? A filmmaker should be at least a tiny bit concerned about the craft. You just wrote that using lights is a compromise? As a filmmaker and photographer this makes my brain hurt. I think I may have thrown up a little too.

I just watched one of my favorite films of all time yesterday. Technically it's flawed, but who cares when the story is just so good? I mean, as an example, watch 70's American cinema --the films from that era that have stood the test of time. They're not still around because what they captured was pristine. (Although some of it still looks incredible) But mostly it's still relevant because of the stories. Making something that persists into the future and has some sort of narrative resonance may be wishful thinking on my part, but in this final stage of my career, I'm at least gonna try. ...and "content" doesn't factor into that effort.

FWIW, he'll work for cheap.

Hackintosh for you!

Oh, no doubt that some young folks coming up will do both, mixing provocative elements as they go. Its just that, for a guy my age, I'm gonna stay out of it; played with doing so about 10 years ago on YouTube, but couldn't get comfortable in it...also was too soon, I think.

Also, I have almost no doubt their current path has a better chance to be more lucrative and notorious than the one I'm on, but the style of content-creators is not one that I personally would find creatively fullfilling or artistically worthwhile. I like traditional movie-making too much "Content" will have a place, but I think overall it's probably just not for me.

Here's my take: "Content" is its own word. "Filmmaker" is a different one. The latter needn't concern themselves too much about the former. I respect content creators for YouTube --as I don't have the motivation to do it, but "content" is not really art; it's not really filmmaking, is it?

Not going to comment on the actual content...just going to say that the director is horrible at doing interviews. That was as bad and as dry as it gets.