fuzzynormal

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.

​Yeah, that's a total joke and I can't imagine similar cases sustaining this precent. I mean, a juror on the Gaye case was asking if chords could be considered intellectual property! I dunno ignorant juror...let's go back a millennium and ask Guido of Arezzo what he was thinking... This happens often in U.S. courts. A jury of "peers" is anything but. In the U.S. the legal line (up 'til now) to not cross regarding melody in particular is that every 8th note needs to be different --and the Gaye case mucks that up a lot by broadening the considerations of intellectual "theft." Ultimately it's a money grab by the Gaye family and they won. Hooray for them, but they left a mess behind. And Clarkson will be fine. Having some directed antagonism seems to keep things loose with that show. My guess is that everyone involved in the production knows this quite well and they exploit those that don't understand the entertainment industry just to keep the conversation happening.

​Yes, by all means, stop playing with toys. At least buy gear that makes you appear like a professional behind the lens and next to the cool camera stuff because that's what the viewer will truly appreciate when they watch the final product. [rolls eyes] Never mind these option that give you professional level imaging for a few hundred bucks, just use gear that has brand prestige among industry people. Such as a RED. It's so great. And your favorite gritty movie was once shot with it. If you do otherwise, you're not going to be prestigious or taken seriously by other guys that appear professional next to cool camera stuff. Well, unless you actually capture a compelling story and create an emotional and memorable film...which depending on your circumstances, using a toy camera might give you the best chance of acquiring, but, hey, whatever. As long as you look good in your PR shot when you're pointing and standing next to a big camera with a huge matte box. And you'll never make money! As a documentarian that's probably going to be true no matter what gear you use. Anyway, the "you-must-use-this" snob attitude (and it is a legitimate snob attitude) about specific brands is ridiculous. Sure, some people in the "biz" embrace it, and maybe it even helps them in their certain industry circles, but it doesn't mean it's an attitude we all need to share or assume that outlook works for one's particular needs. If you have the skill and the story, you can shoot the damn thing on a smartphone. As a documentary film maker, if you start with thinking about the story you'll always be better off than starting by thinking about the gear. My opinion is that too many people get that backwards.

You gotta keep moving. Lots of mega corps started off as different businesses. Shell, for instance. Who knows what Canon will be renowned for if they're still around in a century.

I just shot a doc with a GM1 and a Gx7. Outboard audio isn't the greatest process, but aside from that the imaging looks great. I got better results from those Panasonic cams than I would have acquired from my 5DII...except for interviews. That FF interview look with a wide open 50 or 85mm is pretty sweet.

Kind of both. The poor aliasing and the exaggerated moiré that results from it just makes those video wide shots look bad. I'm not too concerned about the perceived resolution the EM5II delivers. That's good enough. As I've written, I do hope that Oly can improved the video out of the camera with firmware, (maybe using your suggestions) but no way can that happening be a realistic assumption. Meanwhile...killer stills cam.

​GM1, GX7, A600, GH6. Even Panasonic's GF series is worth consideration. If you want a better video camera for half the cost of the EM5II, it's pretty easy to do. For me and what I've discovered, here's the deal with the EM5II: You can't shoot far and wide "moving-the-lens" video with it. The moire just kills the image. It's that bad. Really. I mean, just jaw droppingly ridiculous. Like, how is this even possible in a 2015 camera? I don't even think the Nikon D90 was this bad. And that camera is, what, 7 years old? (man, how I wish some sort of firmware can minimize the EM5II moiré in the future...fool's hope though) Static while wide is acceptable, but the whole point of this camera for me is to lose the tripod. Here's the other deal with the EM5II: If you don't shoot far and wide you can get great video shots easily and fast with just hand held. Often, that's enough. I have a specific client that demands a certain style, luckily this camera fits that niche' perfectly. I can now do those jobs quicker with the EM5II. And, as a stills camera, this thing is ridiculously awesome and worth the price. The image quality mixed with some of the novelty imaging features it offers is a lot of fun. The ability to shoot handheld at a 10 or 5 shutter? With a fast wide on the camera such as the 12mm f2.0, it's just wonderful, creative, and enjoyable. And, since I also dabble in night photography, the composite mode and long exposure mode have been a pleasure in which to experiment. I'm 90% a motion pictures guy though, and...ugh, video is the issue that I consider most and why I keep writing about this stupid/great camera. It could have been "the one" to handle everything, but it ain't.

​I own the camera and disagree with that. It's decent enough and I can use it effectively to get easy shots because of the 5-axis, but cameras that sell for $500 from Panasonic and Sony are better than the video IQ from the Oly right now. And that's a whole 'other price class...lower. My EM5II is a great cam in my modest collection. It's there for certain work and performs great at it, but it's not the best tool if IQ is your premium.

Well, sorry to break a promise, but here it goes: Please look at those two sentences above and try to notice the contradiction. Yes. Yes.​ It's very good, not as accomplished as OLY 5-axis. It drifts more. ​Asking for a comparison while deliberately handicapping the comparison? I think you were upset at an earlier example of this in previous posts. ​Yes. But I would use the full stabilization feature set. Handheld at a FFeqiuv of over 600mm it is required. ​Okay. And for my work I think otherwise. You're right, I'm right. So, please take the last word if you'd like to respond. I have no intention of engaging beyond this.

​I understand that's what you're trying to say. I disagree. I think most here are indeed just that or trying to be. ​I don't know what to tell you. My experience tells me that this is just wrong. Oly's 5-axis stabilizer is the best it gets. This is why the video is such a let down. You don't hear too many people expressing serious disappointment about the video on a Fuji camera, for instance. There's a reason for that. A Fuji camera doesn't have a killer stabilization feature that we'd like to see paired with great video capability. I do make a living at this low-end video production and own or have used almost all of these systems that you mentioned. On the other hand, from your own admission, you're forming an opinion based on internet testimony and examples. As such all I can say is that your writings are based on a bit of self-professed ignorance. So comment what you will, but I'm not going to hold your opinion in the highest regard --and I suspect others here on EOSHD might share that outlook. The reason Oly's 5-axis stabilization is touted is because it's superior, that's why it matters. As they say, "if you haven't tried it, don't knock it." Look, I can tell you that the Sony A7s camera has such great low light capability that a single candle will illuminate an exposure of the grand canyon. Now, you've read that. It still doesn't make it a reality. I think we've gone full circle and round around enough. I promise I'll lay off responding to you now. FWIW, I have been entertained by your posts. Thanks for that.