fuzzynormal

Agreed. I've utilized IBIS effectively for my low-end corporate shoots. Unless one is a complete moron shooting video, ya figure out what looks good and what doesn't and make it work for your production. No, you don't use IBIS as a replacement for a tripod. If you're doing loooong-take event videography, (boring, but whatever) you most likely get a tripod. On the other hand, if you attempting to knock out a ton of quick but elegant b-roll shots, you can make IBIS footage look great. With decent IBIS I quickly and easily learned how to emulate a dolly/slider shot. I do this handheld with a simple technique. Doing that on the fly adds a level of quality I try to accomplish on my gigs. Back in the day, I'd have to set up track to handle the bulkiness of video gear. Then, as gear got smaller, I went to a slider to accomplish the same look. Now I can do an entire shoot handheld and still get that more sophisticated footage. What's not to like about that? Bottom line: You still need to be a half way decent shooter, nothing compensates for that talent. But if you got the chops and know how to make smart decisions, (IBIS is NOT a steady cam people) then the added tool of IBIS is a welcome capability.

On my EM5II I do find myself taking more stills because of this. I guess that's a big reason why I find the camera kind of fun and enjoyable to work with.

That's the thing about various gear or filmmaking "blogs" out there. Most often it's dipshits like me spouting off on our anecdotal and biased experiences. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that. But when a site purports to be some sort of authority on matters when all they're doing is elevating us fellow dipshits to assert some faux academia and generate ad revenue, damn right readers are going to be skeptical about that nonsense. "Don't bullshit a bullshitter" is the American colloquialism...or "dipshitter," if you prefer. I mean, god bless the kids at a site like nofilmschool for pissing into the wind with their tinkle of naiveté. I think even that sort of blog has a place, but to manufacture cut'n'paste "content" with the priority being the monetizing of it all? No thanks. Too smelly. Fact is, EOSHD doesn't play that "content" game. It's not trying to be something it's not. It has license to be aggravated, satirical, or dismissive because it's willing to pay the price to do so. When I was a kid we'd shorthand such an attitude by simply saying it's "punk rock." If anything, that's the minor-key vibe that keeps me around here. Expecting EOSHD to be otherwise, knowing what we know of the owner of this place, is also slightly ridiculous.

Yeah, butt how's the bokeh?

Camera X has better skin tones.

What's the context of that? I'm not up enough on the saga to parse it.

I used to have that glidecam. You just need a spacer to lift the camera a bit, yeah? Suggest going to a hardware store and pluck around in the bins for anything that'll lift your cam enough and then get a bolt to fit. You could get a machinist to fabricate something for you in a matter of minutes as well. Or, honestly, looks like a Manfrotto quick release plate might give you enough. If not, it's pretty easy to add a spacer to the Manfrotto receiver too.

Indeed. It suits my run/gun doc stuff quite well. Pany does as well, but the Oly feels more comfortable for the long haul. Of course, the gx85 is cheap too. Best value for $ I can think of right now. --And I do like shooting stills on the Olympus and the X-pro2. On the other hand, I took out the Fuji the other day for some motion picture shooting just for the heck of it, so it must be growing on me.

Contemporary aesthetic. Kids with their phone camera videos and the YouTubes.

Whenever I want super thin DOF or low-light ability, I put a Canon FD f1.2 55mm w/a speedbooster on my M43's. I've always found it a pleasing glass combo. The image is not perfect --and that's fine as far as I'm concerned. It does offer character. I also use Oly's 12-40 2.8 a lot. When I want sharp, contrasty, and clean, that's the lens I go to. Is it "special"? Eh, maybe, depends on one's POV. You're not going to see the same shallow DOF on that glass, but that's not nessecarily a bad thing either. But basically, I'm a big fan of good older lenses. If you like newer Canon lenses and the 35L II, why not get a metabones speedbooster adapter, buy another 35L II used, and keep using it? Or, rent something like the Panasonic LUMIX G Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 ASPH Power OIS Lens and see how that grabs you. I'm curious of that myself and will probably give it a try this month.

Don't forget, the moire. That's still there too. Yeah, all the issues of my EM5II, 'cept the new Oly shoots 4K. Weird thing is, even with all those flaws on my EM5II, I still use that camera the most; learned to work with the video limitations. Luckily, I've found the pre-amps to be decent enough and acceptable when combined with a sennheiser ew100 wireless kit. I think I'll be in the market for the EM1MII a few months down the road as my next doc starts...if/when the price drops. Not because it's the best, but because Olympus models seem to appeal to me for ergos. If the IQ was wildly inferior I wouldn't consider it, but I do find the image acceptable. And that IBIS is crazy. So we'll see. Oly or Pany at this point.

Well, in my case that's true as well...although we eventually got basic cable when I was in high school. My mom kept the household at a temperature that rivaled the refrigerator. Maybe that was her plan. Save money on heating and keep the meat chilled simultaneously. I wish I could use this excuse for my lack of youthful companionship. I had more challenges than a landline could affect.

Yeah, I'm of an age that knows a history without the information super highway mobile World Wide Web, so I had a life untethered. Maybe I romanticize that nostalgia a bit, but, among other things, I do know what it was like to have a conversation with friends about stuff before an easy answer was in everyone's pocket.

Not alone. It's my favorite procrastination tool, among other cons. Feel like it often diminishes my quality of life rather than enhances it.

Of course, the "chip on the shoulder" is the exact reason why this place has more authenticity than others and feels more real. Its why the articles that do appear actually are entertaining and don't feel like slogging through some PR brochure. Its why the forum has some juice behind it. Its not self censored for safe or broad corporate appeal. I, for one, appreciate that, and the culture it allows, if nothing else.

Or get a M43 native lens. Or, better yet, just shoot with a fast prime? Lots of folks seem to think that a variable is the only way to go with video shooting. However, there's a quality that leans "cinematic" when the focal length stay consistent through a shoot/footage. On a lot of my work I often favor one lens and that's it. Something around a 50mm FF equivalent would be perfect for weddings. Not too long, not too short. Great for shallow DOF. Of course, that's not the advice you're interested in! Good luck, regardless.

As you know, you have to manually set IBIS to the focal length for "dumb" adapters. The IBIS will work give or take a few mm, so you have a bit of a mm "window" to work with, but not a lot. It gets wobbly the farther from the accurate mm tandem-setting. That said, setting your focal length and then manually adjusting the IBIS to match take about 3-5 seconds, so you can always just do that.

I had to make a DCP a few months back in a rush, so I just hired out the service here: cinsend.com. Uploaded my film and they created and distributed as needed. You have the time to test a DCP build, so suggest to have a DIY go at it. Always good to learn those things.

I've never really re-visited his blog much because of this. Valuable info there, just wasn't really attracted to the style or content.

My guess is: Not a chance.

On second viewing, looks more like a filthy sensor.

Considering the guy can't clean his lens, or shoot two test shots at the same f-stop, not sure how much I particularly want to trust his results or how he's applying the color grade. That said, it makes sense to get banding from 8-bit log.

"Like I say, I have loved my time writing EOSHD but I am thinking I might soon stop. What has tainted it has been the sheer snobbery of some of that pro-video industry. The poor attitude so many pro videographers in particular seem to have towards newcomers and enthusiasts and artists." For what it's worth, yours is the only website that feels authentic. We all know the internet is now just a brown stream of corporate content, so to have a place where things are real is welcome. Enthusiast used to have places to go in the past untainted by monied nonsense. Through a confluence of timing, ambition, and opportunity, and attitude, yours is a place that's remained "clean" from all of the corporate PR clutter. No small feat in this modern life. I'd suggest that if you decide to bow out as a guy writing content, maybe become the creative director --and then bring on board a select like-minded-few that might be willing to provide the same ethos that makes this place so special. Or curate the more interesting organic bubblings that arise from the forum and turn those into front-page blog entries featuring input from the main players of the thread. As for crusty snobby "pros" that bitch about people with "toys" that "don't know the first thing about making a film"... well, that sort of curmudgeon is a scared little snowflake because they rest their ego on the tech, which is always getting easier to use and better. Not exactly the best foundation in the digital world. There's enough of them to make a blizzard sometimes, but ultimately snow melts, doesn't it?

After living on Windows 10 for the past 7 months, I'm gonna return to OSX... with this caveat: it'll be on a home built hackintosh. Now, of course, you're looking for a laptop, but if you ever want the best of both worlds, don't forget that there's always options.

Yes. I'm writing this while procrastinating on a low-end-corporate-edit currently open in Premiere that has exactly that: GX85 and X-pro2. I like the x-pro2, but I don't like that it makes me color grade "backwards" from what I'm used to doing. I have to lift the blacks and bring down the whites. With my other cameras, it's the opposite. Not a big deal. Let's say I "push" up the x-pro footage and "pull" down the gx85 footage. This doesn't even take into account the vast differences of lenses used on either camera. The X-Pro2 was the Fuji f1.4-35mm and the f4-10-20mm. The GX85 was an old Canon FD f1.2-55mm on a speedbooster. And then also some other location shots done with the GX85 and an old Nikon f1.4-50mm on a speedbooster. Honestly, that's just a lot of variable. I would never really get this stuff to match perfectly, but I'm making the footage harmonize, not necessarily be "perfect." I'm not a perfectionist. I mean, I know what shots come from what cameras and I personally can see the nuances. But that's me. The client can't make the distinction, so therefore it's all close enough, for whatever that's worth.