fuzzynormal

Well, let's also be honest. The trailer isn't doing the movie any favors. It's bad. Mundane while being too revealing of plot. Maybe Sony should've considered hiring out this guy's editing and storytelling skills:

Indeed. That's the thing about "Muley" Harold Ramis. He definitely pulled his comedy from some weird pathos, and it always made it rather grounded for me. But then, I've been a fan of his since SCTV, so I'm biased. The best comedy, imho, is tragedy. Slapstick is okay, but needs to be moored to some sort of human truth for it to work effectively and resonate. Folks dismiss comedy simply because they view it as silly, but the best comedy is stronger than any straightforward drama --because life itself is a tragedy. After all, we all know how it ends and there's nothing we can do about it!

It's just plain basic misogyny. I don't know why anyone should be shocked by this sort of reaction. The internet is run by 15 year olds. 15 years old, literally and figuratively. Insecure dudes need a scapegoat for their sexual anxiety. Also, they have a hard time relating to gals as regular complex human beings. As such they don't want anything other than the simple objectified stereotypical woman in their pop culture. Which, by the way, I think they view pop culture a little bit as their entitlement. --And I would note that, in a sense, they deserve to feel this way as MOST successful pop culture and commercial marketing caters directly to them. And they like that stuff segregated. The ladies can have their own stuff, but their response is to relegate it to the dismissive Chick Flick category, "Put it in the corner. There we go. Okay, that feels better." When a well regarded pop culture franchise goes against the norm, they get bent out of shape, simply because they're not very sophisticated people. Some of them might be some day, but at the moment many are not...might not ever be. I suppose it's good to try and push back against this ridiculousness, but it's like trying to push back the tide with a broom. So, dial up the SJW umbrage if you feel you must. Be aware that most young guys are just stupid and confused. Although, might as well try to get through to a few, I suppose. Worse things to do. All that said, hey, it might not be a great movie.

As shown with the film you shot on the EM5II. Many flaws with that camera and they're all successfully minimized -- and the strength of it is on full display. Of course, the great thing about high-end gear is that it's forgiving and gets you where you want to be easily. (aside from the dent in the pocketbook) But, any image capturing device can be used in a creative and intriguing way, for sure.

You know, I'm not sure I would recommend this for most shooting, but if we're talking about perceived sharpness and motion cadence, there's always the option to consider of shooting a 0° shutter. Personally, I kind of like it for some stuff. It definitely takes the video-edge off whatever you're doing. It removes the clinical "too-clean" nature of digital motion.

I find this stuff fascinating: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mermaid-stephen-chow-comedy-about-human-impact-earth-becomes-chinas-biggest-film-ever-1545558 As is pretty obvious, filmmaking is a global biz. Sony and Disney are trying hard to figure it out. Ultimately, I think that the system will continually fracture a bit. Smaller more niche stuff will thrive to fill the gap as studios continue to try and prop up their tent-pole franchises. And, by necessity of having to strive for broad appeal, ignore the more artistic and narratively challenging side of cinema. Those smaller/better ideas are migrating to prestige TV and the internet. Which is perfectly fine for an aspiring-late-career-documentarian like me. It's hopeful. In the meantime, that goofy Chinese flick is outperforming (per screen) Deadpool by double.

Ii desu yo! If nothing else, it's good PR for both sides of the table.

If only I didn't have that one damn client that demanded 60p video... Well, I'm glad I have the client, just wish she wasn't so enamored with 60p, it would make my purchase decisions a heck of a lot easier. Normally, I would never consider that price for the Dx. I know there's other camera options for video, but I just have to decide if spending that much is justified for my needs. (of course, maybe they're not needs, just personal desires ;-) )

Everyone seems to like the camera, for good reason, but that price... Ultimately, what do you think? Good value?

Seems like there's enough there to do whatever you want with it.

I shoot almost all my m43 stuff @f2. But, I do like my f1.2 lenses in case I need that extra brightness in a dark room. It's good to have that ability even if it means some annoying CA and softness. A f1.2 lens stopped down to f2 looks sharp. I'm shooting old Canon FD, but I've used Nikon and Pentax with success as well.

I'd sure like 60p 4K for one of my clients...

Same. But I really do small fry corporate stuff for the inter webs, so it's adequate. This year I'd like to bump up to new hardware, but we'll see. In the meantime, I shoot 8-bit, transcode to 422, find my sound bites, edit the story with a nice music bed and nat sound. Create the "radio" edit, then lay in my b-roll as needed. Dress it up with some basic graphics treatment if required, then go into the color grading via FCP. Pull my colors together with 3-way color correct, and then start a little Magic Bullet "Looks" on shots that might need extra help. That's about it. Still don't get too fussy about tweaking IQ too much as the storytelling is more a priority. As it is, I expect the technical craft needs to get better to compete now-a-days, but I do think I'm adept enough at delivering solid enough stories, at this level, to get by.

I'm waiting for the cameras to actually be released. Can't really tell how it works with video until they're being sold they make it into the wild. In the meantime, if the cameras was using the same sensor tech, (it isn't, BTW) then it would seem logical. But as it is, Fuji doesn't seem to make logical decisions when it comes to offering video on their cameras.

5-stops of 5-axis image stabilization? Impressive. Once that tech (eventually) makes it way into 4K consumer cams that shoot 60p, man, that's some nice creative flexibility. I don't know if I'm leaning too much on my EM5II IS these days, but I've really integrated it into my style of shooting. Would just like that extra bump of 4K @60 for useful 1080 post-production flexibility. Soon...should be soon. Anyway, as a gear head, I find the wonkiness of the Pentax camera kinda good looking. Sort of like a dumb American muscle car. It looks stupid and cool at the same time.

I've been using the EM5II with the Sennheiser ew 100-ENG G3 and attain very acceptable results. Is it as good as audio passing through a nice preamp? No, but what I've been getting has been more than useable for me. Of course, with the ew100 I can adjust the signal I'm sending to the camera, so I can avoid stressing the EM5II modest pre's, but it does work.

I do run n gun a lot. Not sure what your situation is, but I'm typically covering 1 subject. As such, I put a wireless mic on him/her and then the receiver on my camera. Lately it's a EM5II with the battery grip adapter. Good set up in that I can monitor the audio signal and the whole "rig" is small. Also: Simple. No breakdown. No set up. No tripod. I just carry my camera with me and shoot. Shotguns are fine and all, but they need to be be near the subject to be effective. Otherwise it's just an expensive mic that's not located properly for capturing clean audio. If it's a necessity to go with a shotgun, (sometimes the situation demands it) I get an audio operator to boom pole it. For the most part I'll pick up group conversation audio well enough from the lav the subject is wearing. On occasion I've run two wireless mics and I just let it record outboard and carry that pack in my camera satchel.

Their search function in general has been worse than useless since the beginning.

Your straw man sounds like me, actually. As it is, I'd really like to get a 4K consumer cam that shoots 60p. If only because one of my client likes that frame rate. Otherwise I wouldn't care too much about it. Although, slow-mo @4k would be nice.

Definitely go for it. I still have a soft spot in my heart for the KY-27 I used early on in my career. Fully competent piece of gear, but it didn't stop me from coveting the Sony stuff.

I'll dabbled in JVC gear since the early CCD days. I've used 'em, made decent stuff with 'em, even liked the results a lot of times. They've been somewhat competitive in offering IQ on par with other brands. They're always flying under the radar, so to speak. But...you know how you can buy cheap vanilla ice cream at the grocery store and it's pretty decent? You can even put some chocolate on top, maybe add a few sugar sprinkles? Not bad. Then, one day you decide to just try the Häagen-Dazs? It's sort of like that. Better ice cream is just better ice cream. There's always a level of quality that JVC can't seem to attain or don't bother in attaining. You can sense it when you use the gear. It's that Robert Pirsig vibe he always talked about. Both vanilla ice creams are yummy, but you'd always rather have the Häagen-Dazs. Still, sometimes, a 50cent ice cream cone is perfectly satisfying.

Weeeee! Whatta you think? 15 years 'til it's in every consumer gadget? Can we all envision a time when resolution and DR are irrelevant? Seriously, like, sensor and display tech will outperform human eyesight. Then what? How weird is that going to be?

It's N scale model trains. I just know it.

I'm sure the camera produces excellent skin tone, but I've found that most cameras produce attractive skin tone under natural "magic hour" light. And that's what we're looking at there in that shot. A girl illuminated by the morning sun.

Yeah, but how does it render skin tones?