fuzzynormal

I do think the model will change (is changing), but let's not forget that Louis C.K. earned the luxury of being able to thrive on the vanguard of this new model simply because he established his credentials in the old model. On the other hand, it's proven that mass media is possible with youtube.

Certainly pros need to work in the specialized minutiae and hone their craft, but I do think it's a bit silly when a naive hobbyist with a t2i tries to shoot raw with expensive lenses, and then attempts to apply advanced LUT's to footage --when they can't even yet figure out how to point a light in a meaningful way, frame an interesting composition, or structure a story with any compelling cohesion. I guess it's just easier to be technical than creative. Well, I don't 'guess' in my case, anyway. I know it is for a fact.

I too use the M43 system. Sometimes with a speed booster. Last thing I did travel-wise was Indonesia; urban, coastline, and jungle. Had a heat wave and also lots of days of rain. Man, the humidity. Yikes. The LUMIX and Oly cams I had on that shoot did fine and it all fit into a very modest camera satchel. During the trip I shot a dark Church interior as well as a few bat caves. A handful of work at night too. With a f1.2 prime lens and a speed booster one can get decent exposure at stay below 3200iso. Need that low-light ability. Depending on your environment situations, I'd also suggest putting durability and weather sealing up on the priority list. And while it would be great to travel with robust pro gear with RAW capabilities, the work I do in the field just can't support that kind of commitment, so consumer 8-bit is the compromise. I've not felt terribly limited, but things do depend on what you're aiming for regarding the end result.

For what it's worth, I've traveled the world extensively for a client and she's always been partial to the Sony image and the cameras she's used over the years represent that bias. Her aesthetic and mentality is certainly more from the broadcasting POV rather than cinematic. She insists on 60fps, for instance. Anyway, good luck with it all!

As always...great work! Congrats to you, the director-writer, and the crew. I like the bit about fish-sticks. Also, that Puzzo guy is a pretty good voice actor. Does he get a credit as camera-op too? ;-) I really enjoy the theme of short films I've seen from you here on EOSHD. The inner dialog narrative stories are a lot of fun. Good creative opportunities. So...do the Olympus PR guys visit this website!? When the NX1 came out with their goofy "Yvonne" product film I seem to remember it getting slammed and people here actually said, "Hey, just give a real filmmaker a camera and let him do something!" Not sure how you got connected, but glad you did. It's encouraging to see the potential of the EM5II, regardless of it's limitations. The fact that you were able to hold down the highlights is nice to see. Also, the camera arm/body rig, did the mount arm go out behind his crotch? Also, who built it?

Highlight rolloff is not as good, but in my opinion it's only marginally "not as good." If you're pixel peeper, then you'll also notice the the EM5II isn't as good as a LUMIX. I have two other Pany cams and they shoot better video, but I hardly ever film with them anymore. Since I like to shoot with the camera, and the stabilizer let's me get fun creative shots while handheld, the "neat-o" use of the camera outweighs the inferior IQ. But again, like you, I'm sending most of my stuff to web video and that's kind of a IQ equalizer. I'd suggest giving it a try for a day or so. You never know. Sometimes a piece of gear just feels right...or not.

This doesn't fit any of your image quality criteria, but since you said the word "fun" I thought I'd mention the EM5II. In no way does it exceed the IQ capabilities of other cameras, but I just can't help enjoying shooting with it. Fun for me is being inconspicuous while being able to shoot cool shots on the fly. (A camera with a wrist strap) What Snowfun mentions above is a great point. Regardless, the EM5II appeal is an sort of an intangible thing. I'm not even that fond of the menu system, but I do like using the camera. I've shot corporate gigs with it next to a GH4. For web delivery I felt like it cut together fine; more than fine, really. And the things you can do with video and that 5-axis stabilizer, that's fun too. You could almost forgo taking a tripod, depending on the type of footage you're trying to get. I think it now sells for $800 new. I also have 3 vintage Pentax A110 prime lenses for $75 and I think they look really great with the EM5II. Of course, numerous other lens options exist. Getting good, fast, and cheap glass mounted to a speed booster will give one impressive low-light ability too. If that's a huge priority, I'd consider the A7s. The older version used is $1500. Most cams shoot pretty good video these days. If you think a particular strength of a camera, such as stabilization or low light, is a perfect fit, then invest in that capability. Otherwise, seems like you could just stick with what you have and do just fine.

Honestly, I have no issues with it as I think they're angling for a sort of dirty low-fi vibe overall. Imaging is subjective. BTW, you should go find Vince Gilligan's WTF podcast interview with Marc Maron. They go off for a wonky 15 to 20 minutes about film vs. digital. The discussion feels like it could have been lifted from the pages of eos-hd.

Yeah, tabloid "journalism" exists for a reason. I do doubt that culture will grow out of it; just too many dumb shits on the planet. Lots of smart ones too, but it's a heck of a lot easier to connect and exploit those that are easily exploitable. And that's not an attempt to sounds elitist, as I've been exploited many times. It ain't smarts that helps me these days, it's old fart wisdom. As an aside, and Vis-à-vis e-mail, who here is now getting slammed with spam that has "Trump" in the subject line? I know I am. If that doesn't tell you something/everything...

Think this era in mass media will be known as the BS "listicle" trash era? I do wonder if culture will grow out of the nonsense and the tone of this junk will sound as ridiculous in a generation or two as dialog from 1930's movies. Then again, as conditioned consumers, we're trained to believe that the choices we make in purchases somehow represent our success in life. What better way to justify one's self worth than to find like minded opinion as a way to say "See, I knew I was right! I'm smarter than everyone else!"? Listicles give people that affirmation. Perhaps they'll never go away. Tabloids have been selling for centuries after all. Criticism of this guy is somewhat ironic to me since there's over a dozen pages of comments in the a6300 thread... Oh well, that's my stream of consciousness pop psycology anyway.

Anyone that's complaining about what they can get in a camera for 1K these days is ridiculous. You. Are. Not. Limited. The technology that's at your fingertips is more than enough to do whatever you could imagine. Go use it.

It doesn't actually give head, but I'm sure some people could find a way to f**k it.

A versatile tool is a versatile tool. So say I, an amateur poser.

It's good stuff so it's fun to talk about it. Btw, I stumbled across "Tangents" last night just randomly browsing Vimeo. Kept thinking, "man, this has some fun cool shots in it, what great energy." And then your name popped up in the credits. Figures!

Oh yeah. I overuse it to a fault. Anyway, one of the ways to get better encoding results when putting a vid on you tube, I hear, is to uprez it to 4K. Not sure how this would affect film grain, but it's worth a shot. You're SOL with vimeo.

"in this case I do feel I have reach the limits of M43 for photography." I'd be interested in hearing why exactly.

Be commended that most of the comments about the film are about the content not the craft; and consider the typical tech-centric sentiments about things on this website. I think that's a clue as to your film's effectiveness. I'm assuming you're probably not making the movie to appease everyone, but rather to guide them into a bit of a perspective shift. If I've noticed anything from your work it's that you have a accomplished knack of creating authentic tone. This is not easy to do. We may not like or agree with the characters of your movies, but we sense that they are grounded in a reality that is true for your stories. I just watched a movie last night that couldn't find that sort of center for the characters and it was incredibly frustrating.

If there's a better metaphor for the plodding of American politics, I'm not sure I could think of one at the moment.

Also, I like the "leave the city" line in homage to the other short film, that inspired this one, which Ed shared here a year ago.

Be that as it may, I contend that a rule of 3 is not something requiring implementation in one's work to make that art effective or worthwhile. Feel free to disagree. As for psychology, I do believe that potential voters of someone like Bernie Sanders are more likely to have a mindset apart from a voter that would rather hear jingoism and be comforted by that approach. And as this is a short film to appeal to a certain worldview/voter right now (as opposed to a general election) I can see how it might be effective in it's defined space.

It's sincere question. I disagree with your assertion of what a valid film is, as you explained it, but if that's how you define it, no worries. It is subjective. However, you know... the questions you're asking about the film pretty much help define it as a valid film. You're trying to reckon with it after all. But you don't have to ponder that if you don't wanna. As for me, my terms that define "film" are broader. I like impressionistic cinema. I'm drawn to Malick for that reason. I find Ed's storytelling with this film more narratively cohesive than one of the popular contemporary travel films like "Watchtower of Turkey" which is a cool editing/cinematography exercise, but doesn't offer a story. Still, one of my favorite films is "Man With A Movie Camera" and I find it fascinating all these years later. It's not even near as structured as Ed's film here, but nevertheless a classic of cinema. On the other hand, another one of my fav films is Casablanca, which is as mainstream narrative as possible. Of course, but then again: fiction that affects the viewer by employing empathy and generating contemplation in the viewer/listener is a foundation of many forms of art. As such, I'm not taking it literally. But I do like it, and I appreciate the questions it raises in my mind. I think so, yes, if it's fiction for a traditional populist audience, like a Ron Howard film. But who's to say that's necessarily the best way to create something like this?

If not, what does? Unfortunately, everyone is uninformed to an extent. Heck, former Prez GDub and his cabinet admitted they were chronically uninformed and offered it up as an excuse for a lot of their foreign policy decisions. (to which I say there's a difference between willful ignorance and being uninformed, but, well, you know, semantics)

Well, from my POV, I'd give that sentiment a full on raspberry. If a US citizen voter isn't frustrated with the candidates and is perfectly comfortable with any particular person, I'd say that kind of outlook is more dangerous than being skeptical and worrisome. Especially in 2016. If one finds themselves trusting a politician, any politician, I'd say they've gone off the intellectual deep end. You think it would be any less disturbing if we just watched a similar styled movie called "Trumphead"? Oh my good lord, that would be something. Also, Ed, what would you tweak about the color? Nothing seems off to me.

Cool! It's fun and encouraging to see how (seemingly) simple footage can be used for shaping creative narratives. I do wonder if a lot of filmmakers get that part backwards and demand assertively creative visuals before the storytelling? Not that you don't need both, but you get the idea. Also, clever use of irony there at the end is an impressive bit of storytelling craft. Anyway, POV from an aspiring documentarian, so I'm biased. I am biased for a heavy handed use of film grain too. What is it about me that enjoys that? BTW, one of the things about ideological rhetoric, and is present here, is how things are framed as of the USA is a broken state that needs to be fixed. You see this in phrases that typically has the word "again" in it. Make America great again! Make things good again! As if the way American culture exists is currently in some sort of disaster. I don't see it that way. We're constantly and absolutely flawed and screwed up, yes. Things are always unfair in many regards and needed remedy, yes, but you can't have a broad swatches of cultures coexisting without that sort of reality. To assume otherwise is a fundamental misunderstanding of the philosophical DNA of this nation. Hey y'all, our system is pretty much broken by design. The three branches of government are built to NOT cooperate wholly. You don't fix it. You continuously shape it through compromise, but fixing it is impossible. I realize the "again" phrase in this instance is coming from the perspective of a fictional character in a movie, but nevertheless it triggered my thinking, so you should be congratulated. Good storytelling should accomplish that.

I've actually witnessed the opposite. My circle consists of some pretty assertive females, so my reality is a bit different I suppose. Ultimately I'd say it's one of the things one runs into when dealing with inexperienced young people; some trying to figure out what they're gonna do with life in general.