fuzzynormal

You want cheap? Like $400 U.S. cheap? I have a Gx7 and have never been disappointed by it. You can buy them for not much. Really, I think any of the LUMIX cameras are good video value. I've shot films and docs with 'em. Decent in low light with a fast lens and speedbooster. Or, a used a7s if you really need that ultra-low-light capability. If you know what you're doing, anything'll probably work these days.

The future of production is going to be doing more with less. However, if you're a creative, sounds like if you work hard at the craft you can fill a needed demand.

Let's not give the guy undue credit. He gets enough of that as it is. He was on the vanguard of digital, but the industry was moving forward regardless. NHK had a lot more to do with camera design and capabilities than George ever would. ...That's not to say Sony wasn't keen to let the world know who turned to them to do real-world-test-work with their HD cams. Not bad PR to have a famous camera geek (who just happens to be the creator of the industry's most important entertainment property) give it a "thumbs up." As for the new film. I think it will be very competent, kind of fun, and all that. But, our zeitgeist just isn't the same anymore to make StarWars as magical as it originally was. Much like superhero movies now, as Disney cranks out numerous movies based on this universe, it'll be impossible to not be blasé about it. You'll probably enjoy 'em, but it'll never be transcendental as StarWars was during the Empire Strikes Back years. As for "Awakens," I already bought my ticket. Hey, capturing a fraction of nostalgia is worth $20 and a few hours if my time. The Mouse knows this.

As a follow up: It's hard to say, how some things never change. try not to get burned doing the neutron dance.

It's all a matter of taste. I don't dislike 60p at all. In fact, for some corporate stuff, I think it's ideal. But for cinema I've always been attracted to the low-fi imperfection of 24p film. Maybe it from growing up and watching most of my movies at a crusty drive-in theater?

Imagine going into a huge multiplex and seeing all their monitors in the lobby with the "enhanced" frame rate turned on. So, big budget cinema in a big cinematic complex on big cinematic screen...looking non-cinematic. Good job AMC. Even the purveyors of cinema are unable to escape their ignorance and will ruin cinematic IQ The slow frame rate is NOT a liability. The altered rate of motion pictures that don't match our vision's reality is what heightens the suspension of disbelief. That's kind of important when your watching a narrative like, I dunno, James Bond, for example. Its not because it "looks better" than 60p, it's because it takes the edge off our perception of realism. Movies are an escape from reality, it's a manufactured narrative. The illusion is diminished by too much visual accuracy. All that said, the Japanese love high frame rates, and would rationalize FOR it. I just can't. I like the magic of slow. that's a pretty big misunderstanding of how it works.

Nice looking images; confirms my experiences with the EM5II. Out of the box you're not going to get the ideal motion picture images from it, but a little manipulation in cam and in post you can make it look very respectable. I dunno. I've found it more than capable. Others not so much. As for the film...I want to know what's in the case. It's Marsellus Wallace's soul, right? ;-)

It's an embarrassment of riches. And it's great. Even now I contend that even average consumer IQ is so advanced that it'll allow a filmmaker to create great looking cinema. 5-10 years from now? Whoa. Its fun to watch it get better and cheaper If you can't manage to effectively create with this stuff, then you're not doing it right and/or paying attention to the wrong details.

As have I. However, I hook the EM5II up to the Sennheiser EM100 wireless system which I can level-adjust to to push a really robust audio signal to the cam. I can then dial the camera's input level to the minimum and reduce the noise floor pretty good. Like the video, the audio preamps are not great, but it's useable enough for what I do to get by. It's really a nice practical and compact run and gun set-up. I think I posted a pic of the cam with the audio gear awhile back. At any rate, the camera is a bit of a compromise all-around, but I think it's a balanced compromise with the 5-axis tipping the scales in a good way. I'm still shooting my preferred picture profile. It's similar to what Andrew has mentioned.

Spot on review. As a video shooter I'm in the camp of it's "just good enough." If the IQ was any weaker I'd probably go to another cam... But I do love the 5-axis for what it lets me do handheld. Since my gigs are for the web, the IQ is perfectly acceptable. Also, the colors look good to my eye. Btw, the bat grip w/headphones is great. Not only for the audio, but the ergos of it really helps shooting.

FWIW, that film looked like absolute crap on IMAX. I always considered a hipster to be someone ignorant that professes an unearned expertise. Basically all looks, no substance. Superficial. I'd say that Quentin is a legit cinephile that is also somewhat accomplished at this point, yes?

My recent anecdotal experience of watching Mission Impossible on IMAX confirms his prejudice. I was actually embarrassed for the studio releasing such visual low quality onto the public. As for a filmmaker doing a novel homage to the technical craft, nothing wrong with that. Why not?

I'm not talking about what is the best solution for you, I'm talking about what it takes to get the best looking shot. That qualification was mentioned earlier Large steady can rigs with a good op can not be beat for impressive tracking shots, and I just don't see that changing -for reasons mentioned- regardless of new tech. You or I won't bother with such large rigging and will adapt with alternatives, but that doesn't mean the old way is still not superior visually.

I don't know. The heavier something is the less likely you're gonna get that noticeable y-axis bounce. "We will see solutions" might be too optimistic. A "configuration-that-almost-works-as-good-as-a-steady-cam-for-less-than-discrimiating-users" is more likely. All this algorithm stuff and stabilized internal sensors is cool and all, and will get you kind of close to a good tracking shot, but the "real-thing" works in large part because it weighs a lot. If you're using a small light weight cam you just move it more because you can. It lacks mass to slow things down. And too much random movement is distracting in a shot that's supposedly being stabilized. And I can tell you from my experience, when you move the EM5II body too fast, you get an unattractive motion artifact as the stabilizing sensor will over compensate. So, it is a bit amusing that all this new technology still can't surpass a good steady cam op's work from the 1970's. It's great that stabilization is available and all, but the new way is not always going to be the best way. Slow and heavy might be an asset rather than a liability depending on what you wanna do and what sort of camera configurations are necessary for a particular production. As some Scottish dude said in an outer spacey TV show: "You can no' change the laws of physics."

As a guy that utilizes the EM5II often, I can attest that it's definitely NOT really comparable to steady cam rigs. What steady cam does and how it does it is a whole lot different than sensor "floating" Bottom line: to get really smooth motion having some sort of a rig with a bunch of mass is going to probably look the best; might not be practical, but it'll offer the smoothest shots.

Indeed. Point taken. I'm trying by attempting to find interesting people --and then doing justice (as best I can) to tell the stories that define them. Maybe one way to do that is to use a OSMO. It's possible. Who knows?

Andrew mentions it... When every hipster in the world has awesome image IQ and steady shots, what will you be doing that makes your work more impressive than that trust fund kid standing in the same spots as you? Creating interesting stories is what's gonna matter. Tell a better story. Be a better editor. Those skills are your future currency.

Wait, Are you implying artistic imaging skill matters more than what particular sensor is used? Because that sort of rationale isn't going to get much traction here on the 'ol interwebs.

Here are some old examples from me. I wouldn't say this is the same style as the video we're talking about. However, there are sound editing techniques in a simple sports PR series I did in 2013 that are kinda-sorta similar. It's not a complex technique, just a little time consuming. And building a nice unexpected but motivated soundscape in an edit always takes it up a notch. Sound is always good to concentrate on. Basically, just getting in there with curious elements can create a nice context to an edit.

Regardless on how more successful they are in development (or are not) than other manufacturers, I tend to think a 21% number would be somewhat unsettling to the people in Canon's board rooms.

Just out of curiosity, because I never go there, what's the culture of that DVX forum like? Is it just really buttoned-up or something?

Not too hard: A character's POV as he/she is overwhelmed by sensation. I mean, I think I've already seen something similar on "Homeland" for instance, as the bipolar protagonist has a cope during an emotional breakdown. Sci-Fi: Some sort of temporal time travel. Thriller: interspatial montage as the hero travels to a new location... Whatever. The main thing is that creating dynamic edits that actually controls the viewer's eye movement in a deliberate way is a basic and effective technique. Even "slow" edits should do the same if the material demands it.

Editing is a "hidden" part of the filmmaking craft. When done right, it contains incredible power without being too noticed. The interesting thing about this sort of technique is how very very assertive it is while still keeping many things "hidden" --such as audio...and by visually connecting seemingly disparate elements. It's a sort of paradox. It's also visual candy. Its an impressionistic film, yes. And not one that is meant to be direct narrative. It's fun to watch, but as a viewer you're not allowed to have much emotional connection to anyone in it. Which is fine. It's more about letting that environments sounds and images wash over you. And, yeah, it will be a "dated" look a handful of years down the road, much like the twee "maker" movies will be/are. However, that's not to say that the craft used very aggressively in this sort of work couldn't be used judiciously as an effective narrative tool in other sorts of filmmaking.

Seems like Dziga Vertov style with modern production elements. The thing to consider about the fundamental element of the style --is to be aware of how the images and transitions lead the viewer's eye very assertively.

Forgive your lighting? Why? It looks like you know what you're doing. From what I've found, much like music, what you take away is as important as what you do. The space between the notes. Those that know what to "hear" are ahead of the game.