fuzzynormal

The "film look" is a combination of the entire craft. I've even seen (and shot) 16mm film that doesn't necessarily have the "film look." Embrace the fact that one needs to comprehend numerous elements of motion picture image creation and you'll be on a path that might get you there someday. It's not a single tool, it really is the knowledge and wisdom that makes it happen. ...the least of which, IMHO, is highlight roll off. But, understanding color is a piece of the puzzle. Knowing how to control color in post does help, but don't expect it to be the answer. It's just a fraction.

I'd actually recommend checking and testing both ways before deciding which way to go. I've shoot the Lumix 100-300 on an EM5, and found that I liked the stabilization more from the body, so I turned off the lens stabilization. Was able to shoot video at a 600mm focal length (equivalent) effectively; had to really brace myself and lock it in, but it worked well enough.

FWIW, and it may not be germane to the above conversation, but I've had the sensor image stabilizer get "stuck" on my GX85 a few times. Just putting that out there. Keep an eye on that possibility with these cameras regardless.

Yup. And then controlling the light in those kinds of scenes can make a "cheap" camera look good. But anyone thinking they can slap on some post production magic to make sloppy footage look on par with elite gear is really misunderstanding how this stuff works. We can make footage from cheap hybrid cameras look awesome for a lot of reasons, but 15+ stops of dynamic range is what it is. A camera that squeaks out 12 just ain't the same. So, rely on the fundamentals of the craft and make any gear you use look as best as it can.

Light properly.

No knead bread is the easiest thing in the world. Love it so much it's made me fat.

Not very. The controls are very straightforward --but you will most likely crash before you come to terms with it. I felt pretty confident after a day of practice with an old and used camera-less drone. Then, I flew my actual camera drone into a tree a few days later during a shoot. Boom. Basically, it takes some wisdom to learn how to interpret spatial dynamics from a distance. More important than that is just learning how not to over-react to stuff when flying. All that said, I basically gave up on aerials. I don't find them particularly compelling anymore. Understood that your clients just want it "because," but I really have a hard time rationalizing 'em these days in my own work considering that it's so prevalent elsewhere.

Point taken here. The thing I came to realize a long time ago is that not all camera enthusiasts are necessarily filmmakers. But all filmmakers are usually camera enthusiasts. In open forums like this, you know what happens...

Better than I could do on a "regular" camera, so I ain't gonna knock it. I doubt anyone in their family that sees it is really interested in how it was sourced anyway.

Don't worry about it. Someone is just misconstruing the adverse lighting/exposure situation for actual camera performance. This is the YouTube world we live in. A beautifully lit scene on a crappy 10 Stop camera can look better than an Alexa in a bad lighting situation... but try explaining why to a beginning enthusiast is always gonna be a challenge.

Welcome to Premiere rendering.

Nothing wrong with shooting an Alexa, but I do think that anyone in film production that truly believes technical superiority offers the best path to creative achievements has some goofy priorities. I get why aspiring filmmaker folks want to do their best technically, but to prioritize it above the artistic craft is nuts. It's there to support the thing you're trying to accomplish, not the thing itself. There's no real way forward in being a filmmaker with that attitude.

Well, it took them awhile, but they seemed to have caught on okay in the 19th century. Got a little crazy in the middle of the 20th, but they weren't alone.

Well, you can't get that DR from the LUMIX cams, let's be fair. Still, while I wouldn't turn down shooting certain stuff on that equipment, I can also say, after just editing a project that integrated my GX85 footage with RED M-X sensor footage, my GX85 footage was just better. Of course, I just shot better images than the guy on the RED camera ;-) I'd much rather carry a GX85 into the type of doc shoots I do than a RED. The newer RED cams are nice, but for what purpose? You need to know what suits your needs on a shoot. If you know what you're doing, and the demands for IQ are modest, the 8-bit hybrids can really get you where you need to go image-wise. That's my doc bias though... All that said, I'd gladly give an Alexa mini a whirl.

I would consider an Alexa mini. A 50k rig that I could rent locally? Pretty much what we did with beta cam back in the day. Its not a purchase. It's an "investment." ;-)

Perhaps renting an Alexa. I have a colleague that can cut me a break. It's all sort of up in the air and depends on budget. Would be nice to play with pro gear and not make as many compromises, no question.

I'm interested in this camera as well. I'm certainly looking at alternatives these days. Since my wife is on Fuji, I might end up there too. Really kind of depends on the next project. There's a chance I could go upscale and get a "real" video camera even though I love doing things on hybrids.

My old FD doesn't have as much contrast as native lenses. It renders colors different, CA is more pronounced wide open. Things like that. Also, just the operation of the thing creates a different quality. Pulling focus, for example.

Vintage lenses are enjoyable on modern cameras. Really takes the edge off if you're going for a less clinical image. I've just shot a series wherein the a-cam was usually an old FD 55mm 1.2 on a cheap Chinese speedbooster. It can be a flawed image when you really look at it closely, but that's fine when it's what one wants. It's "character." I can typically rationalize imaging stuff like that. And FD and Nikkor lenses on a dumb adapter look awesome regardless. (as long as not used wide open) I've also dabbled in Pentax stuff, which has been a lot of fun. Just depends on what one's going for, I suppose.

Imaging these days is awesome. I think I might go make another film with this stuff or something.

Hmmm. The phrase "paid work" and "auto-focus" paired together. No thanks.

Pffffst. I'm not going to laugh at that at all. Not enough DR on that footage. And the skin tones? [eyeroll]

Agreed. My next build will be a Hackintosh PC with all the same guts as a MacPro, just 2/3rds cheaper. Not the highest end for performance, but will allow me easy back and forth between Windows and OSX. And, yeah, my wife is interested in FCPX, so we'll give that a shot. As for ProRes, there's a pro option for spitting out ProRes from one's NLE, but it's expensive. As an alternative, I've been able to use Footage Studio for one of my clients that wants ProRes. Otherwise, it's well encoded h.264 for most delivery on the jobs I do. Indeed. I have. Love the speed, don't like Premiere on WIndows too much, but it's not a deal breaker.

I've been using Premiere (again after a stretch away from it) for half a year now non-stop. This time on the PC and as well as on a Mac. When I edit with premiere on my 8 year old Mac, the premiere GUI works better than it does on Windows. Now, when you're cutting footage more than 40 hours a week, having a GUI that's refined is necessary. Using Windows just feels "shabby." Sometimes I click something and it doesn't work, other times it does. I try to move things with the mouse and it goes all "scribbly." Annoying stuff. Rendering is great on the PC though! Ultimately, I think I might just make a Hackintosh using the same hardware/chips found in the Macs. Might be a happy medium.

I don't hear it too much honestly, but I've been filming in city environments, so lot's of ambient tone. Anyway, it's not like you'd use the camera audio for much anyway. Any hand shuffling on the body translates into noise "crackles" on the mic. Plus, the mic fidelity sucks.