fuzzynormal

Ha! Sarcasm, right?

Surely. which is why I'm complaining about people leveraging technology like a grumpy old man. (and I am a grumpy old man, trust me) Maybe people like Verna Fields were just as disappointed with the advance of things like the AVID in the 1990's? I don't know, but when people are asking algorithm to do things so fundamental to the process it just rubs me the wrong way. I mean, it's just music. You listen to it, comprehend the structure, and use that to your advantage in your edit as you see fit. It's subjective and some of the basics of the editing craft. I mean, this seems so obvious it's hard to imagine even a newb brushing aside the simple process of listening to a track and instead wanting to find software to do the job; your job as an editor. Do you really want to remove the human element from an (assumedly) artistic endeavor? If your answer is 'yes' then have at it, I suppose.

Maybe I don't understand, if your cam is already mounted on a slider, why would it need IS?

I have the em5ii and it's really a lot of fun. I mean, I can do stuff handheld that's cool as heck, and pretty easy. That said, however, image stabilization is not a style you'd want to do for everything. The more hand held look does have a certain organic vibrancy for particular scenes. you can't really pan and tilt with IS, and landing a moving shot is not really possible without a robotic/algorithmic visual "snap." So, while I feel the em5ii IQ is actually pretty acceptable, (a lot of folks dismiss it) turning off the stabilizer is something I do on the em5ii from time to time without much regret. It still records a nice image and the colors are pretty good too Point is, all these tech thingies are just tools. Use em where appropriate and you'll be fine. And if your camera doesn't have a certain feature set, so what!? Make do without it.

I don't know who you're talking about.

There's a big difference between "real" cameras and the kind of stuff hobbyists and industrial shooters (like me!) use. I shot 4 different projects this week, and two of them were last minute things, so renting on my level is not really viable. I need something to go out the door with without much lead time. Also, for the crap I do, I get paid less than it costs to provide craft services to a real shoot. I need a camera that's cheap and easy. That's my end of the pool. BTW, I shot an actual Super Bowl spot once. With a Canon XH-A1 no less. Actually, it was a CBS media network promo, does that count?

My wife and I went to Spain a few years back to make a humble, simple, and impressionistic travel film; labor of love sort of thing. We were going to shoot it with multiple cameras/lenses... but when we got there and spent a few week on a paid assignment before our personal film making, we began to debate about the visuals --and ultimately decided that the most cohesive look would be to film with one camera and one 50mm lens. Nothing else. No audio or tripod even. So we put all the other gear in storage and went into our shoot with a 5D and an old piece of Nikon glass. Also, we'd film it, for better or worse, with the max aperture., f1.4. Our reasoning was that since the subject was supposed to be a reverent and sometimes mystical experience, the aesthetic of shallow DOF would heighten that sense. In the end I believe it worked well enough, but I've never shot a project like that before or since. Doubt I will again. It just happened to fit the vibe.

Ha! Gotta love the biblical colloquialisms/parable. Haven't heard that one in awhile! As it is, if anyone wants to hire me for corporate rhetoric consulting, my fee is only $500/hr.

Yup. There it is. I was played for chump. My ticket was for AMC and IMAX. Those two together in crime, I guess. Welp, not that they care, but that's my last time going to one of their theaters.

Well, in retrospect, I guess I should have done my due diligence and researched the production chain of the film I was going to see. "Buyer Beware" and all that. Still, there's something disagreeable with going to see a IMAX branded projection of a film, (and paying a premium price for it) and then getting an highly inferior image. Not smart on the IMAX biz-ness front, IMHO. It diminishes the brand. Yes, the master digital format is 2k. Odd in of itself, and then to bump it up for an IMAX projection? Bad idea. I mean, there were shots that I could see every single sharpening decision they attempted in Resolve. Focus was soft on that shot? Sharpen the eyes! All of those post production tricks were right in your face. In a way, it was ultimately kind of fascinating. Like watching a DVD six inches from the monitor. It's also ironic that while film is often considered the holy grail of image acquisition by older industry folks, this particular example illustrates how that legacy can be tarnished. Anyway, I wouldn't have expected a major distribution film like this to have this sort of flaw, but that's how the industry is doing things and I guess they felt they could get away with it. I just wouldn't have ever expected that a film, actually shot on film, and projected in a theatre would be woefully inferior to "video." But, based on what they decided to do, there's my testimony.

What's that? All I see is a muppet.

No doubt. Personally, I like standard and portrait. That's just me. Then again, I'm also enamored with Malick, so it's all good. Do not talk to me about Bay. I like to pretend he doesn't exist.

Man, does EVERYTHING have to be some sort of damn algorithm these days? This is the arts (supposedly). Just do it for yourself. If you can't find rhythm in an edit, I don't know how you're ever going to be a successful editor. So say I, grumpy old man. Now get off my lawn.

Still on the wide-side, but if it works for you, that's great. I'd consider renting the 1dc in the future for certain jobs. I'd love to see the used price come down a little more though --and maybe just buy it; depends on future work and how other camera models depreciate. I lean to smaller gear and shoot a lot of stuff on m43, (talk about being unassuming when shooting video, try a GM1) but who knows...

Just curious. Why so wide? Not typically cinematic at that short range. Not knocking it, mind you, just wondering if you like that look better or if you're doing something wide-specific.

Did you see it in IMAX? I'm thinking the larger format really exposed the flaws. Then again, it was so bad I'm not ruling out projectionist mistake. Maybe a condition of all issues, who knows? All I do know is that I got screwed paying extra for this sub-part screening. Oh well.

Yeah, the "IMAX" treatment I feel was definitely a bit of a scam. Shot on Kodak film, finished in digital post at 2k, and then upscaled for IMAX projection? That's not cool. For small-ish multiplex screens it sort of makes sense, but at my screening I truly felt I was being unfairly exploited by the IMAX branding.

At my screening it didn't look like film and it didn't look like video... Actually, it looked like a film transferred to a DVD then digitally up scaled and projected. So...both? In other words, it looked kinda like a mess.

I just can't believe I went into an IMAX screening and watched a projection that looked so mundane. The trailers, the advertisements, the "turn you cell phone off" segments all looked fine and then... the actual movie started and it felt like I was watching Vimeo with the HD button turned off. Damn annoying considering it was a $16 ticket. I've been going to IMAX films since I was a kid. My fondest cinema memories are of watching dry nature films shot in massive IMAX. It was so cool. This MI movie, however, truly looked like a digital projection that should have been shown on one of those small multiplex room screens, just blown up to fit the larger IMAX space. Even aside from the lack of resolution, the shooting in the film was sloppy as hell. A few scenes were crafted quite well, but so much stuff just looked ... lazy. I dunno. Maybe the larger format betrayed a lot of that usually gets overlooked. ---------- EDIT: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=68152 BTW, The production credits caught me off-guard too. The film is underwritten by some interesting players. That might have something to do with their distribution choices and how they decided to finish the prints. Beats me. But ultimately the IQ was sub-par. This was truly a real-shot-on-honest-to-goodness "film" that ended up looking quite a lot like low quality video. Not because of the actual production value, but because of the post processing and how they decided to distribute it.

Just watched the Revenant trailer at an IMAX theater today. The motion cadence looked lousy. Curious if the projection was messed up or if that's just the way it looks digitally projected. Was, sadly, not impressed. Also, MI: Rogue Nation looked like (poorly) upscaled 720, so I'm suspicious if the theatre messed up the projection? It really looked quite mediocre. I mean, the damn advertisements they project before the screening were higher resolution, easily. Anyone else see this film and notice any peculiarities or is the culprit a poorly managed movie house?

Might be a good candidate for a crowd-funding campaign? Seems to me there's space in the motion picture market for these sorts of niche products. As a documentarian, I'd be interested using a camera like this specifically for talking head shots. The ability to get pleasing DOF in tight spaces, like an academic's messy office, would be an useful advantage. That reason alone is why I'm still using a 5D.

As an tangent...why are these modes activated in default by the manufacturers? As for Avatar; could care less about the frame rates on that one, the story was a joke and therefore so was the movie.

You're on the right track. Resolution is somewhat irrelevant if you don't know basic production skills such as lighting and audio. If if you shoot Nikon, best bet would be to upgrade your camera body, I think. In in the meantime think about how you want the mic and light your future productions.

Lackey Moths? Known as tent caterpillars where I grew up in Michigan. I remember one year as a kid they were friggin' everywhere. Step on 'em and yellow guts squish out. Ah, I'm channeling my inner 8 year old.

When in doubt, tell a story. Always tell a story. Visual montage is common. Good storytelling is not. Do you know the story behind this subject? Can you find one and make it interesting? Hard to do, right? That's why to do so would be special. Also, many many action videos are wide angle. Almost al of them. It would be a challenge to create one with a longer focal length. Say, a 50mm s35 equivalent. At the very least it would look different, and that's not "generic."