fuzzynormal

I don't disagree that heavy-handed crap is heavy-handed crap. I just refuse to be offended by it and expect that sort of nonsense when online and watching certain things. If I was offended everytime I saw something like this on the internet, I'd never have a chance not to be.

By ignoring them, honestly.

I say no, not really. Even Michael Bay is making his jingoistic movie. If one is not creating something with perspective and passion, then it's just craft. Which is fine for some things, not so much for others. And if you want to do something artistic, you need that. Even unsophisticated passion interesting. Isn't the opposite rather boring? It's like looking at a Norman Rockwell painting or a Thomas Kinkade. I think the reason that so many movies have a progressive political slant is simply because storytelling artist tend to be a more empathetic lot. One has to be to willing and able to create characters with "truth" to them. It's easier to get there if you project your feelings and emotions, rightly or wrongly. But whatever. I don't mind navigating the ideological minefield. It's part of what makes life interesting. If you want political parroting, there's plenty on on-line cacoons to wrap oneself in.

I'd say it's pervasive. It has to be by definition, doesn't it? Ugh, getting to (or closer) to 5 decades happens faster than you care to imagine.

Well, awards are awards. Oscars, Grammys, whatever. Yes, the Oscars trend to auteurism because these are industry craft people deciding what "matters" and they can see that skill set. Hollywood is an industry town. People that do the craft well and with a commercial sheen are indeed cherished. The Oscars represent a certain sensibility, just as the awards from the FilmOut San Diego film festival have a sensibility. Sometimes great movies and the Academy Awards line up, but most of the time what really wins is industry politics, so I wouldn't put too much import on owning a gold trophy. The reality is that a majority of films that stand the test of time were originally overlooked by the Academy. Best Picture winners are almost always decent watchable films, (okay, maybe not "Crash," that sucked) but you could review the entire list from the past and realize there's stuff that's been rightfully dismissed by the passage of time. (and the opposite) It is what it is. And there's plenty of nuance in all of this. Nothing is absolute. I just don't trust the Oscars to be some sort of upper echelon quality barometer and really never have. As for Tree of Life, it resonated with me on a deep level, but it directly reminded my of my relationship with my brother, so I was "all in" after the first 20 minutes. Other's mileage will vary. Also, I like impressionistic films. Heavy plot is nice for some things, but these days I'd rather be confused and curious than hand-held and explained to.

Subjectivity in the context of life, wisdom, etc. As you get older you just look at thing different. Pop culture aims at younger people, so most gray hair folks develop a disconnect. You might no be there yet, but it does happen gradually.

Indeed. Happy accidents. I love the fuji cams for stills and just get so frustrated that their cameras I have on my shelf are pretty average for video.

Honestly, that's like trying to multiply with zero. If video ever works well in a fuji camera I'm convinced it will be by accident.

Does it work? I need a Hi-8 device for an archiving project...

Yeah, I think have been successful colorizing to an extent, but I don't use LUT's much.

That's a hell of a statement to leave behind. Damn impressive.

“NX-1, GH4 or 5DMkII?” The answer is yes. Any of those cams will allow you to capture fine images and to an accomplished 1080p edit. The quality on all will be fine. The difference in how they render their image is a nuance that you'll have to decide on your own, preferably by doing tests. In a way, it's like choosing a preferred film stock. As we all know, any "drop dead gorgeous" images created on modern gear typically depends on the skill of the shooter and lighting, not the camera. You're right to be more concerned about the post process and, depending if your a beginner or a skilled pro, figuring out the best workflow for your abilities. And man, when I shoot a doc and end up with hundreds of hours of footage, I want postproduction firmly planted in the KISS realm. If you know how the BMCC behaves and are pleased at what it delivers, why not stick with that? ProResHQ and Raw, use either depending on need.

You can always make the edit with a comp track and share it around to online forums for people that do VO. If your cut is impressive enough, maybe you can work out a swap wherein a pro agrees to help you out in order to have a cool new video on their demo reel.

Eh. Not all of us.

Emulation can be a good thing when one is learning. I've created this color cast many times. But I'm willing to wager that this era in Hollywood film making is going to be chastised as the time when colorists hooked onto this teal/orange nonsense --and it is going to look ridiculous and very dated to "future" eyeballs. You know how when you watch an 80's movie and you pick up the visual cues that let you know it's an 80's movie? The 'aughts and 21st century teens are going to have a very obvious aesthetic too. If you want something you create to be more timeless, I'd suggest looking at films of the 70's as a guidance; much more basic back then. Essentially, I'm saying don't think you gotta do this just because it's what you're seeing most of the time.

I like M43 more than I thought I would. It's fun.

Can anyone point me to a trusted source/online how-to for doing the post RAW process on an 5DII? Not looking for anything generic, something you've used that you've relied on and has served you well; made things relatively easy during the post. Never really had a desire to give it a go, but as cards and computers have changed, might as well see what's up.

Well, I'll say this, there's a huge difference between an embraced novelty and a revival.

Honestly, I think film cameras are easier to shoot with than with the RED. I've never been particularly enamored when using one, as it's a fussy thing. That slow boot up is so frustrating. But, at that price, I'd buy it if I was going to make a certain type of short narrative film or a feature. Because the thing demands light, it does force one to be more considerate. I mean, you really have a narrow range of ISO. That can be a plus, depending on what you're trying to do.

Don't get me wrong, what I wrote is not a personal slight, I'm just saying the EM5II is a great tool to have, but it's not a panacea to getting wonderful footage. It can help for certain things, depending on whatcha do.

I mean, any camera would work for that. The EM5II is nice because it's got the best in-cam stabilization. Certainly, if you know how to shoot, it helps getting quick shots. If you don't, well, it ain't gonna cure those ills.

You can go back read my posts on the camera if you wish; it'll give you insight to my context. You can see some videos I've done with it too. Bottom line: I like it just fine. If I was shooting ultra wide, not sure what the stabilizing would be practically offering me though? Ultra wide shooting doesn't really need stabilization. AS for the EMII, I have two $100-ish speed boosters for it plus a bunch of basic dumb adapters. It all works good and the old Canon FD and EOS glass looks good. Nice thing about speedsboosters and dumb adapters, it'll give you 2 focal lengths with one lens. I'm a firm believer in shooting motion picture with manual focus. The peaking and EVF is strong enough to allow focusing by eye. That's really great. Anyway, even though I have 4 M4/3 prime lenses, about a dozen other misc primes, and the Oly 12-40 proZoom, I shoot most video stuff with an old 55mm FD lens and the speedbooster. I like the focal length AND the extra heft that old glass provides. I do recommend the shooting ergonomics with the extra battery grip, in my opinion. Shortcomings: with modern glass the image does moire. Meh. Not a deal breaker for me. The older adapted glass reduces the moire, FWIW.

I like the image both the C100 and Sony FS5 cameras put out. Not sure why anyone would be hung up from doing worthwhile production by the limitations of either. They're capable cams that would be effective in any situation, I think. The variable ND of the Sony sounds great for run 'n gun doc stuff, that's for sure.

Refund! Aside from that, when I went the projector ran fine. And it was fun to hear the film spooling, see the scratches, watch the image registration drift through the gate. The narrative didn't work though. Not an exceptional film regardless how it was shot. Appealing to my inner-tech-geek, (hey! They used the same lens as Ben Hur!) but otherwise nothing too remarkable as a movie...not on the a-list level anyway. The director is too indulgent with his style and it was more weary than vibrant on this go 'round. Liked watching Russell do his "Jack Burton meets John Wayne" character though.

Nor am I, most of the time. Now, I use a 5d for interviews with a wide open 50mm, but extreme shallow depth of field for other video shots, like b-roll? still don't quite get it. To me, in most instances, it seems like too much. what can I say? I like the dof look of f4-f5.6 s35mm. I suppose I've been conditioned for it, but I'm not alone.