fuzzynormal

​If they made, say, a DVX200b and it was the exact same camera without the fixed lens --just a M43 mount... Well, that wouldn't be ridiculous. The Japanese camera companies are great and all, but they certainly have different perspectives than the indy cinema/enthusiast market.

I've learned to tolerate rigging up consumer cameras; mostly fretting around the audio side of things. It works for me after a fashion, but sometimes you just need to shoot fast and easy. Cameras like this are coveted for those reasons. When you're not striving for some sort of cinematic DOF and doing corporate, this type of gear is ideal...still, all they had to do would be to allow a mount. I think people would be freaking out (in a good way) right about now.

I had a few of the old 100's. Good workhorse cam. The shooting ergonomics were great and the buttons on this guy look similar. Flashback.

​I will. I helped out a colleague on a local video just for the excuse to play with the EM5II and cheap-stabilizer setup. She's using a few shots in the cut. When she's done with the edit I'll put up a link. My only compliant so far is that the cheap fly-cam rig does't have much mass, so you gotta be careful with the vertical motion. Honesty, the EM5II would work better on a Glidecam 2000 and some big wide Canon mount glass. Like my sigma 10-20mm. That extra weight would smooth out the moves. Here's a video where my job was to get her shots with the Glidecam, Sigma 10-20mm, and GX7. Nothing fancy but for basic corporate video it does the trick: https://vimeo.com/114590984

I should upload footage I've shot with a EM5II and a $30 stabilizer. It's pretty much on par, maybe a bit better, than these examples. How much is a Feiyu?

There's no "shoot without lens" type of toggle on/off in the menu?

​Haven't had that issue on my GX7, GM1, or EM5II. It's not my run 'n gun lens though. I usually use it for establishing shots and basic wides. I've done manual focus through both ring positions and it's been smooth for me.

I guess you need to learn more then. As for me, I have the Olympus 12mm f2.0. It's pretty great.

​What do you think? Any chance a smaller nimble company might set-up a modest factory to cater to the niche demand of shooters that want to keep doing film? Maybe a Hollywood studio creates a sub-division to do so? Somehow I believe film survives, just curious how it'll happen.

If you're aiming for 16mm, then I'm guessing resolution isn't a factor in your considerations to achieve your particular film-look?

Innovate? No, not calcified Kodak. They don't have the corporate culture for it. This has been inevitable for decades.

​Doesn't that make cinema as an art form and craft somewhat ironic?

I think Panasonic does a pretty good UI overall.

​Uh oh, better stay away from Olympus then!

As a corollary I've always been partial to minimizing my field equipment. I don't know why exactly. While many colleagues seem happy packing their van with portabrace bags upon portabrace bags I feel content with one leather satchel and a monopod. Finding the best naturalistic light seems more fun than building a grid in the field, but again that's just personal preference and obviously only works for certain productions...so those are the types of productions I tend to do. The limitations of moving forward with the lack of stuff in the field is something I like; been that way since my film 16mm and video tube cam days.

Once I got my hands on the FS700 you better believe I abused the slow-mo. Had fun doing it too.

Unfortunately, this is not the site for that. This is pretty much a gear-centric place. I think that people of my ilk congregate here because we're involved in production, but since we're all on a lower level of budget and skill it's a heck of a lot easier to talk about specs than ideas. I can testify that in my own case I have more gear than I have ideas. BTW, does anyone know of a website where talking about ideas and collaborations happens? When you consider it, does does that sort of online interaction even seem viable?

I sort of did.

Unfortunately, some people really don't consider their voice, for whatever reasons. Immaturity, vice, avarice? Mindfulness can be difficult to attain.

Never underestimate the "It looks cool" aspect of amateur filmmaking. Style above substance is easy to do. After all, if you're making a "real" film does it typically involve a bunch of random urban shots with some music bed? No, but when you're making something to show off your camera or lenses that's good enough. And really, what are a majority of vimeo video creators doing other than playing around with their stuff? Not knocking it, that's what I do too. Also, a lot of folks (not me) use this DSLR/Mirrorless gear for weddings. Slowmo is a novelty that works well in that heightened romantic-reality scenario.

​Been through this ringer from both sides of the projector. A film festival that I helped get going 14 years ago would have qualified then as one of these "lonely" fests. But we had resources and ambition to make it somewhat special and now it's one of the most regionally acclaimed festivals with A-listers attending. Who knew? We didn't back then, we just had hope because we felt the attitude we had and the community it was in might work in a good way. Now I'm also working on another film fest (two years old now) and, indeed, it's the sort of thing where no one really likes the submissions. A lot of "not bad" sort of stuff, nothing exceptional. But, like before, we have a few good things to our advantage. Our screening are, and always will be, well attended. 100+ without fail. The community support is the best thing going for it. So, a decade down the road, who knows?

To be fair, some art strives to offend. And why should't it if that's the intent? On the other hand, some people make things from a perspective where a lot of ideological ignorance is presented --where the creator doesn't have the insight or self awareness to comprehend other opinions. In one case let's say you have an artist that understands the various nuances yet strives to say something from her/his POV in a focused way. In another you have someone that does not comprehend the other's views yet presents his/her POV with that empathetic blind spot. So as a person that has to reckon with those two pieces of work, which one deserves the be held in more value? If either? That sort of thing is in a way intangible and it all depends on the art and the artist, but personally I'd hold in higher esteem someone with the intelligence to understand what they're creating and appreciating the context of it. So if you make an expletive movie because you're just not smart or wise enough to NOT make an exploitive movie, I think I'd approach that material with a healthy dose of skepticism. That doesn't mean I'm getting my panties bunched because I'm offended by a certain ideology. It means I think something is shit because there's not much intelligence on display. Art is meant to be poked and prodded from all directions. If it can't withstand that scrutiny then maybe it deserves to be ridiculed. Some things are good, some aren't.

For me, the thing to keep in mind is that a tool can still be great for a task even though it might not be "better." I still use my 5DII because FF with a fast 50mm just looks good for interviews. I think that encouraging someone to consider the 5DII is good advice; depends on what they're doing, you know?

​Tangerine. Look, It's just my opinion that you're just being kinda snobbish about RED and canons cine gear. I get it. I just think it's kind of a quaint notion. Others will disagree. That's the reality of it and it's fine. As for the 5DII, I also use it for interviews. It's a great tool.

The problem with this particular case law is that even though Thicke was aping Gaye, and Thicke is a musical idiot in general, the verdict opens things too wide and the industry fallout could be incredible. Anyway, OT. Maybe Thicke should try a little SRPC track action.