fuzzynormal

Congratulations on buying a camera. It was obviously the right one for you to purchase. You made the right decision for you. Go and do stuff with it. Or not.

Are you able to actually do filmmaking or is the blog your main occupation these days? Curious because my colleague wants to make a go at on-line reviews as a career shift, but I'm constantly discouraging him to do so. I don't know... He's a decent writer and loves buying stuff, so maybe he could pull it off. He's also much more productive than me and could handle both things simultaneously. I certainly couldn't.

He pretty much says the same in the interview, actually.

I heard an interview recently with Vince Gilligan (WTF podcast) and it gets entertainingly tech wonky for a few minutes about 20 minutes in. He basically explains his pipeline for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. Bottom line, they did blind pre-pro tests with a bunch of digital and film cameras and they couldn't pick out which was which. But, he said he still wanted to shoot on film. And he had his own reasons for it. If I'm gong to listen to anyone talk with authority about making cinema, it's going to be from a guy like that. In the meantime, my analogy is that you're choosing a tool. A paint brush. You can use one made from the finest horse hair or one from nylon; still gotta know how to paint, right? ...And finally, there's a crazy wildcard in all of this. Watching film PROJECTED is a whole 'nother experience. Any of you actually remember what that's like? Or gone to see an old movie house spool up a classic film for a screening? If not, you should. When the entire pipeline is non-digital, the details accumulate in a unique way that you can only get from analog. Sure, it's quaint, but it's also very charming; like listening to Duke Ellington on a lacquer 78. It may not be the highest quality, but maybe that's not always the point.

Give it to me, I'll try a few things out, and give you a detailed report 4th quarter of 2016.

sure, you can play that game, but if you're an earnest filmmaker you wouldn't want to. As for average looking people in a 3 minute film: http://youtu.be/uaWA2GbcnJU cheesy and simple, but more powerful than T&A.

These types of wonderful technological shots are great and impressive. Now. To us in 2015 they're pretty, full of DR, sharp high resolution images. Looks cool, right? Well, here's where I project into the future a bit and make a prediction that might seem weird and off base, but here it goes: None of that tech stuff is going to matter in a handful of years. Your 14 year old nephew, who was born yesterday, is going to have at his fingertips the exact same capabilities you just witnessed in that video...and millions of other kids and motion picture enthusiasts will have that same capability. That jaw dropping IQ and DR and color science just won't matter because it'll be readily available at Wal-Mart for $200. The drone to fly it will cost $145, $110 after manufacture's rebate. Let's not overlook the reality that this younger generation armed with this technology from the time they leave the womb is going use the narcissistic-social-media-shit out of it. They'll probably spend less time OFF camera than on it. So, we can all go ga-ga over how nice the video looks, and it does, (It's a nice video. I'd be proud of it if I did it) but without a good story behind it, all we're witnessing a glorified contemporary slideshow. Which is fine, for the moment. I firmly believe that those of us that hang their hat on the fact that they can attain technically superior images are going to be in trouble when that capability is so commonplace it's irrelevant. But, that's my opinion. Really really great IQ is reaching a democratization. 16K? 50 stops of DR? That'll rival human eyesight, so where do you go then? 3D? I dunno. Maybe; not sure. Regardless, what story you decide to actually tell with that capability is going to be the only thing that is important because the tech stuff just won't have the same value. Hey, I could be totally wrong. But I just feel it's going to be how you use the tool rather than the fact you have it. Also, editing. People that are good and inventive at editing. Man, they're going to have an incredibly in-demand skill set. View "Watchtower of Turkey" to see how that ability harmonizes with inventive visuals.

Anything with some semblance of a story, really. Combine that with good cinematography and it should be a winner.

​Well, that microphone looks kind of sweet.

"If you buy this bundle you are not an artist and never will be, because you do not care." ​Ha! Pushing the boundaries of rhetoric, but you gotta do what you gotta do. Suffice to say, there's a perfectly legitimate possibility that an arrogant affluent rich kid with a hell of a lot of superior story ideas than industry professionals might end up with one of these cameras, simply because they just want something to shoot with, don't really know better because they're concentrating on story, and they'll then proceed to create something incredible...since, you know, filmmaking is kind of about effective storytelling, not sensor resolution. I seriously don't know if this is your true sentiment, tongue-in-cheek satire, click-bait, or just slamming Canon because of some internal-debate-feud you have going in your mind. Doesn't matter because, regardless, it's a fun read, if for no other reason than all the "huh?"'s I got to do. And yeah, it's silly marketing from Canon. But entire brands are built upon silly marketing. Honestly though, thanks for the funny words.

​Of course it would be a problem. And knowing why is kind of important. I think you ultimately made the correct decision. FWIW, I run and gun all the time. That's what I do. Even still, I don't use variable ND. Putting a proper and appropriate ND's on a lens is a 10 second process, so no big deal. Unless you're constantly popping inside to outside and can't stop rolling during your transitions, I don't see the great benefit of it. Plus, the goofy color-cast of variable ND is annoying to me. I believe there's now a Chinese company that actually makes lens adapters-to-mirrorless-cams with a slot for 52mm ND's, so if you want to decrease your filter swap time to 5 seconds instead of 10, there's that option too... Kinda cool. Anyone recall the name of that product?

I like Looks because it's quick and easy and I've found my own special recipe for a lot of my footage. But yes, you don't want to push 8-bit too hard. That's true regardless though.

​I'll concur. People will do stupid stuff. American legislation will move on that stupidity and "ruin it" because they can without upsetting too many voters. We are in full agreement with this concept. My extended point is that there's an absence of rules for numerous other stupid things because those other things have strong political influence. As you say, you can't take them away without troubling the electorate; things like drinking volumes amounts of alcohol legally or owning a weapons arsenal. Keep in mind there would absolutely be an absence of rules for drones if there was a "drone lobby" working K Street with the power of the AARP, or NRA. I'm just saying that's what it's gonna take to stop the inevitability of harsh legislation. And that is not realistic for numerous reasons. It's already "ruined" is what I'm getting at.

​I'm just saying I think you'll ultimately have a camera that works fine for you regardless. Choose either one and you're not going to be making a mistake because they both have strengths and weaknesses. Six or a half dozen. Whateva' You can't solve all your desires on a low-budget, so my advice (and my experience) is to not worry about it. I mean, I bought a EM5II knowing that the IQ was inferior to a GX7, but I willingly work within that limitation. Just something you gotta accept...or break out the pocket book and go upscale.

​Well, all I'm saying is regulation exists or not because of political clout. Lots of things influence that clout. Money, words, symbols, media metaphors, whatever. FWIW, I personally don't mind if drones get regulated. Let's also consider this: someone's going to die today because alcohol is a legal drug. Another person is going to die today because of a legally permissive gun culture. I'm not saying the way American govermnment works is right or wrong, just how I think it is. If you believe that you can organize a group of drone operators to influence, positively, future legislation then go for it. That is how it's supposed to work, but I'm certainly more cynical and believe that would, realistically, be a lost cause for the reason stated above.

​If you start caring more about getting nice shots than the camera, I think you'll be fine no matter what.

great shots mixed with what seems to be intense story telling. What's not to like?

​No, it's just a 33" "silk" translucent umbrella. Like so:

​I shot a small doc late last year with the GX7 and GM1. Hindsight being what it is, I'd say the EM5II would have been a better cam for that work. The 5-axis being a killer feature and the ability to record AND MONITOR the recording audio on cam is incredibly valuable. Still, the GX7 image is certainly better, it's just that all the handheld shots from the Pany's are a tad shaky... but that's okay. That vibe sometimes works. FWIW, and I don't know what you're going for in your doc so take this with a grain of salt, I'd think about doing your entire film with one cam and one prime lens. Something around FF eq of 50-70mm For me, there's just something pleasant about watching a film that has a very simple and cohesive visual aesthetic. Plus, if you're not fretting about loads of gear one can tend to concentrate on the more important things; visuals and story. But, again, I'm a K.I.S.S. kind of guy, nothing wrong with the alternative if you can keep it all under control. Good luck!

Super simple. 4pm-ish sunlight key through a silk umbrella. No fill.

​Yup. Although I hear the Lens Turbo II is a better bet. I don't know, just the opines I've seen on the 'tubes. Is the quality the same? Maybe. I think they're probably all made by the same orphanage/factory in Zhōngnán.

​It's a Fotasy speedbooster.

FWIW, I started experimenting with stuff. First try: I hooked up a Fotasy ($115) EOS-m43, put my old Nikkor 50mm f1.4 on it, and shot a low-rent PR vid with it. I stopped down to f2. Not bad. As mentioned before, I'm not terribly discriminating about bokeh, just want shallow DOF to really knock away background. That said, bokeh's a bit busy, but I'm encouraged. My next step involves a cheap Chinese speed-booster and the FD mount with a 55mm f1.2. We'll see how that goes. More than anything, I think I appreciate the idea of buying two cheap primes, a speed-booster, a dummy adapter, and then getting 4 focal lengths out of the deal. Whenever I can do more with less, I like that.

I got GAS. Burp. At any rate, looks perfectly competent for any number of things, shouldn't be too hard to make it do whatcha want... But you can say that about a lot of cameras. Maybe even the one on your shelf. Still, these new developments have me looking Sony's way. Good on them.

The XC10 the worst thing since Chicago Deep Dish Pizza.