fuzzynormal

I feel seen. For me, it's a double whammy. Lord knows I could do all the tech stuff necessary to create beautiful wedding videos and could have a stable lucrative career in that, but I did those gigs early on in my career, didn't like it, and vowed I'd never do it again. I'm literally avoiding making money in a readily available well rewarded market because of some very old "reasons". Nah. I'll make documentaries! That'll pay the bills!

Another great bit of advice I got in my early days was to go study paintings. Particularly Vermeer's and Caravaggio's. As an idiot that didn't understand what made a nice image work and a bad one fail, just analyzing and deconstructing the craft of painting helped a ton. Absolutely brand-dead simple ideas like having your subject brighter than the background (contrast) confounded me as a newbie, but once I started seeing the techniques like that in practice I couldn't unsee it, and I got better. Which is why I'm pretty camera agnostic these days. There's so many fundamental techniques that need to be in place and exercised to create awesome images. Grabbing the most expensive camera/lens doesn't accomplish that for you, it only assists.

I’d say even try up-rez’ing it to 4k and then upload. See how YouTube handles that one.

Pffffst, not watching Godel. They changed his costume too much.

"Pffffst, extreme lighting isn't art" -some person in 1941 after watching Citizen Kane.

Had it. Also had the MII version. Best ergos ever on the EM5II with the battery grip. The other thing you get with those cameras: moiré.

I do that with an Old Fashioned whenever filming with an Arri Alexa. Gotta stay posh.

I've chosen to believe that it's Olympus' attempt to outflank the Japanese regulations. --And that the off-spun OM business will eventually end up back under the "Olympus" umbrella one day when the political opportunity is viable. (They've been known to pull corporate shenanigans) Meanwhile OM are positioning themselves into a more niche market of outdoor photography enthusiasts, so maybe they'll be able to make a go of it there? Hard to say with consumer imaging technology. But, man, if they can make in-roads against Canon with all the 'birders' out there in the world, perhaps! I also like to think OM is a more nimble company that has a better chance of surviving because of this. Wishful thinking? Regardless, it's cool that their cameras are getting recognition from the folks here on this forum. Same. I hate large field packages. Done enough of that in my life and whenever the gear bag gets too big I start to get frustrated. There's a reason a GM1 with an Pentax Auto110 prime lens is my avatar!

I'll chime in with a contrary opinion and a dark horse suggestion: Weathered sealed OM (Olympus) cams/lenses shooting 4k 8-bit --probably considered sort of low-end these days, right? OM cams definitely fly under the radar with videographers, but they have some useful features. The color and images look dang nice straight out of the camera, the cams aren't big, you get really good IBIS, and the file data sizes are relatively small. OM's target demo is pretty much nature shooters, so they build their gear for outdoor use. Be careful though. The video image might not be as 'meaty' as you'd like it to be if you're used to other pro cameras or doing a bunch of drastic coloring in post. Still, the wife and I are currently doing a nature doc and we're happy with what we're getting. ND... Man, that is the shortcoming on all hybrid cams though.

Yes. Also when on sticks and or a monopod. IBIS is a fun tool, but no when to say when.

I remember doing this too. A robin nested outside my grandmother’s living room window back in the 80’s. I hooked up a VHS camcorder and we watched/recorded. Cute! Also discovered how mama birds make sure the nest doesn’t get covered in poop. As for your modern birds, nowadays I think I’d use a ‘cheep’ nanny cam.

I really enjoy the field shooting flexibility good IBIS allows. Once one knows how to really use it as a videographer it can become indispensable. As a guy that loves shooting on sticks that no small admission.

Well, we're all 'Sailing to Byzantium,' eh?

Maybe at a movie's premiere!? I grew up in no-where's-ville-midwest-USA. I watched a ton of movies as a kid, but almost exclusively at the second-run and drive-in screenings. We also had a regional movie house that did 1$ matinees. Ain't nothing that screened there that didn't look abused. Ironically, I don't think I actually saw a pristine print of a film 'til I saw "Hateful Eight". Also, I just watched "After Hours" again. It's on HBOMax. First time in almost 40 years. THAT'S what a lot of movies really looked like. Now add a ton of scratches and bad projection onto it and you'd get the idea.

Depends on the doc. I use hybrid cams and removable lenses for my docs.

I like smaller sensor cameras for the super-zoom capability they typically offer. Also camcorders with built-in ND filers are nice.

Seems like you have a process that works and you're content with it. Very cool. I'm in the same boat. Since I'm low low low budget, I shoot what I can with what I can and align as best as possible in post. I just spent a month and a half filming with a shitty 500mm lens simply because that's all I could afford. It's not great, but it's not a deal breaker either. So, off into the field I went and I used it. And also, combining multiple cam footage with different lenses is not that hard unless, as a filmmaker, you're incredibly intent on having an extremely tight cohesiveness to the IQ --and are desperately striving for seeking out that extra 5% of IQ. Your test prove that consolidating various footage is viable, and my anecdotal experience follows. I know a lot of us here really want to find the perfect recipe for all of the above, throw in some secret sauce to make it all work, and that'll make us sit back in the editing seat and go "golly, doesn't that look wonderful!" However, since consumer IQ tech is pretty damn good now, as a documentarian my goal isn't about the tech, more often it's simply get the shot that tells the story, then tell that story. These days, when it comes to IQ, I worry much much more about the floor than the cieling.

Well, I'm assistant editing with ARRI footage. [name drop!] Seriously though, filming our own thing this month with a XPRO2, EM10III, iPhone, and a GH5. I even used the old Canon 5DII the other day. All over the map. I guess you can throw in GoPro and DJI while we're at it. 7 camera manufactures, one project. Also, all the different lenses we've been using are ridiculous.

Funny you should say that because the mouse character was always supposed to be animated, but the budget wouldn't allow for it. So the director put a puppet on her hand and we did it that way. The film is free to watch this week on the website: www.agiftforallagesfilm.com

Dang. Now I sorta feel like shooting a short with the old 5DII sitting on the shelf. Although it's true that I never really wanted to dabble in RAW for editing back in the day --as the workflow was off-putting. Might be worth learning something old and make it new again.

Doesn't seem to bump up pace of reading much for me --maybe the bold print even got in the way a little?

It's not a practical suggestion to actually do the thing. Anyone with the means would choose Arri over a 12 year old hacked camera all day long. This absurdist theory is just to illustrate that the separating degrees of IQ isn't the thing that makes or breaks a film.

Fair enough. Oly never has been the best at the video side of things. Good, never great. Always a little behind with their IQ, I agree. Still like 'em though. I'm still shooting some stuff every now and gain with a cheap EM10II and I do like the colors. With the OM-1 I have a specific documnetary on the agenda that includes bird photography and video --so that makes it a good fit. Damn lens costs 8K though. Sheesh...still that's cheap compared to other manufacturer's glass made for birding. But, like you mentioned, buy it, use it, sell it.

Have the XH2. Thinking about getting the OM-1. What's your real world "nope, it's going back" sentiment about the OM-1?