fuzzynormal

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?

Yeah, I can't explain my attraction to Olympus, but there it is.

You're right. Helps prove the point, really. They shot Nomadland on more expensive gear because they like the prestige of it. (among the technical niceness of an Arri, no doubt) In theory, I'm pretty confident that they absolutely could've shot Nomadland on a hacked 10 year old 5DII, claimed they used an Arri, and then were "stylistic" in the color-grade. Not too many in the Academy would doubt it, if anyone.

You can't tell me that most of us here have the technical skill to make an Academy Award Winning film like Nomadland. It's brain-dead simple if you have an inkling of video production craft. Storytelling maybe not so much, but that film could've been shot on a 5DII and no one would care or notice.

I vote for print. Ironic that you say "short attention span" when the fact is one can read things a hell of a lot faster than watch the same words delivered in a video. Myself, I'm probably going with the dark horse in this hunt; so much so it's not even mentioned: The OM-1. I got some pretty specific needs coming down the pike this year so that camera just makes sense. I'd wager there's not many of us out here in the wild that'll be using that body exclusively for video production.

Years and years ago I literally used a counterweight'ed lead pipe to do some stuff that I wanted to look smooth'ish, but still very much handheld. The rig weighed about 10 lbs when done. Not the type of thing you want to run around with ALL day, but for short stretches it was perfect for the look I wanted. Something like this:

It's kind of like the old-school difference between "broadcaster" and "filmmaker". Aspects of both crafts can often be interchangeable and muddied, but there's a philosophical difference between the two. 'Broadcasting' the States has most often been about making quick, often shitty, content. News, game shows, talk shows, soap operas --just constant stuff stuff stuff. A lot of that is now being built on independent folks, rather than organized broadcasting business entities, but it's still the same low-effort-with-the-narrrative content. Decent filmmmakiing is considered and slow. There's typically a serious effort to infuse some story telling art into it. Churning out content... eh, there's some of that, but not so much.

The gig economy is the future economy. As a freelancer my whole life I ironically find it kinda sad, actually. It's yet another corporate race to the bottom.

I've literally bought Oly and a few Panasonic cams because they looked cooler than other manufacturers. I then beat them all to shit until they looked ugly as sin, but still...

It's intentional for me as well as I'm most often doing docs or corporate personality profiles. So, rationalizing it as bringing the viewer intimately into their world. As you mention, using that bit of focal compression as a way of isolating the person unto themselves. OTOH, my wife and I did a narrative short last year and we ended up using 18mm on M43 mostly. So, 36mm FF equiv. Felt like the right choice as the main characters were a couple. To the topic's OP: as you see, none of these decisions are reliant on specific camera brand purchases.

I like to use longer focal lengths. Not necessarily tight shots. A person filmed head to toe with a longer lens just looks better, imo.

FWIW, aside from the pro stuff, I'm pretty close to being camera body agnostic now that we're into the 2020's. My preference is to use a 40-50mm prime lens on M43. Or 85 on FF. It just looks more cinematic to my eye. Anything in the "portrait" regions of focal length. Not a fan of wide angle filming unless it's very considered shots. I don't like a lot of different focal lengths in my videos. DOF I prefer modest, but not ridiculously shallow. bleh. f4 on FF and F2'ish on m43. I also use a tripod when I can. Just those choices alone makes the stuff I shoot look wildly different than most 'content' online. I've been sticking with that for awhile now. I like it. I shoot natural light mostly. Learned to take advantage of the situation rather than putting up my own lighting. For instance, I almost always shoot now by turning off the lights in a room and using window light; repositioning my camera/subjects to get the best lighting angles in those situations. It's always funny when I turn off the lights, the client turns them back on thinking a mistake has been made "Don't you need lights?" Nope. "The natural light from the window looks wonderful, let's give that a try." And I turn the overheads off again. Even a horrible office room can look decent with natural light and a little repositioning.

Fastest? I say weddings. Do one on the cheap and make it ridiculously awesome. Use it to garner other clients. But I ain't doing that. The special kind of video people that dig doing it are blessed, 'cuz it's evergreen clientele. In this market that's nothing to dismiss. Also, when you're exceptional at it the affluent will drop some serious $$ to get the best. Other than that, you can do something similar by creating spec work for corporate and make a killer reel, then hustle for gigs. The key is to find an initial client that you suspect will allow you to network to other good clients. That's not any fun, imho, but there ya go.

Well, I agree with his assessment on the Oly lenses. I'd buy the whole PRO line if I could afford it. I also like the jokes.

Played with LUMIX S5II a bit at our local film festival. The guys from the San Diego camera shop, Nelson Camera, came to the event and showcased their gear with one of the LUMIX ambassadors. Anyone in SoCal? I'd recommend visiting those guys as they're really adopting the video aspect of cameras these days. They got loads of stuff for sale and rent, btw, and are leaning into the indy film scene. Hard not to drool over what LUMIX has got going on once you have this new kit in your hands. Funny, 'cause meanwhile the film festival itself was running around with GH1's taking a bunch of stills and video with those cameras...

Massive data rate file that was uploaded in 4K, so that helps. Seems to have maintained a lot of the detail. I uploaded an .mp4 file. We used the Universe plugin from Red Giant for the dust and the jumpy gate weave. "Misfire" was the effect setting. I think maybe those film damage effects subtly popping up as things go along helps with the look. Black dust and very subtle splotching are there, but not too obvious. We didn't want it to look like a reel that had been on the road for months, suffering all that accumulating spooling damage, but what you would potentially see as the first pristine print at a premiere, you know? The 'tight' gate weave keeps the frame hopping left to right just a little also, which I think looks cool. BTW, the plugin is too flaky. Can't recommend Maxtor stuff based of this particular effect. The effect is nice and this one did the job, but it wasn't reliable. Crashed my system a lot. Also used FilmConvertNitrate for the B&W stock film look and underlying film grain. "IL FN P4" for those of you that have that plugin.