fuzzynormal

​I think maybe you need a more active imagination. This capability has existed for years now.

​It is amazing how wonderful the chemical process handles this. I'm sure in a handful of years we'll all be arguing which camera's new fangled quantum organic flux capacitor digital sensor handles highlights in a way superior to film, but at the moment silver halide crystals still kick butt. Now, is it WORTH the extra hassle and expense for creamier highlight roll off...? Debatable.

​No doubt. But like any obstructions, actual ones are harder to overcome than the virtual ones. You always have that safety net of knowing you can ignore a self-imposed constraint. If you're on a diet, you tend not to put a box of doughnuts on your dining room table after all. Discipline to not to break the easily avoided virtual obstruction is great --if you can control that discipline! Most of us would reach for the doughnut when things get difficult. Then again, if there's no way to avoid an obstruction you're forced unconditionally to figure out a way around it. For sure I'm getting esoteric now! Philosophical reductionist navel gazing. But I do believe all this digital production is a double edged sword. Weirdly, the ease of digital production can potentially diminish the quality of a film. If for no other reason than it requires less production effort to attain similar IQ and less concentration/skill from the crew. (normally - most of the time - that's freakin' awesome, actually; more for less) Surely making things harder to do would seem counter intuitive, but depending on one's creative desires... well, it just might not be. I haven't shot a production on film for at least 3 years, but my colleague and I are doing s16 for a new documentary with various mixed media. Why? For all of the reasons listed in this thread.

Zero benefit of film? Not sure I buy that. Just the way moving images are captured of film is unique and worthwhile for certain things. And let's be honest, you can't beat highlight roll off in film. Light is captured in an analog process. Just the flawed nature of that particular process is important. Tiny flicks of particulate on the image, the imperceptible shift of the film spooling through the gate. Even when minimized as much as technically possible it does matters and is quantifiable. After all, we ourselves experience light in a flawed biologically analog way, don't we? Oh man, I feel like a Silver Lake hipster demanding that vinyl is superior to digital! I should be having this conversation while wearing an ironic beard and waiting in line for a $15 coffee at Inteligentsia. Anyway... Analog film does look awesome, and not even in a conscious way. Even for an ignorant viewer I believe this quality appeals on a fundamental, subconscious, and basic level. I don't think I'm being terribly esoteric when I say it's a "gut level" reaction to the images. I mean, I still shoot film stills for a reason. And it's not because it's practical. So this isn't a great analogy, but it's sort of akin to walking into a room full of tungsten light and one lit by fluorescence. There's a comfort level from experiencing light from a familiar source. Tungsten filaments burn very similar to carbon. Fluorescent illumination by exciting chemical compounds that include magnesium and calcium? Hmm, not so much. Ultimately, is shooting on film a huge factor when it comes to IQ? Honestly, I agree with the owner of this website, I personally would't put it up there on the priority list, but I shoot in the no/low budget range of motion picture production. For those artists that are attempting to capture some of film's particular quality, are looking to elevate their storytelling by every means possible, and money isn't really a limiting factor, why not? Indeed, exploit that opportunity. I wouldn't bother doing it, but I understand why someone would make the effort to do so. And, as mentioned in earlier posts, the work flow of film shooting creates a different on set atmosphere. This environment might be a good decision for certain productions.

The EW100 kit is good, but hardly indestructible. I've gone through 2 of the lav mics over the years. They are sensitive to damage and if you're really beating on them don't expect them to survive. That said, the transmitter and receiver have been fine.

Granted, it's pretty much "no-budget," aside from the sweat equity of everyone involved. I suppose if all of us got paid a fair rate for the hours we're going to put into it, then it would probably cost out over 10K. But, it'll be a short film made by a handful of low-end industry people on their own time and dime. It's not our first time trying this nonsense. The cool thing is, these days, as long as you got talented people committed to such a thing, it doesn't have to have a real budget to look like it might have.

​It's actually a GM1, and I have shot a short film on it using a A110 25mm lens. I was pleased with the results. Still, I'd like to experiment with something new and different. The idea of shooting with an iPhone interests me because of the challenge. But I do like the suggestion of a low-light camera such as the A7s. And, as a wild card, maybe do the whole thing hand-held with an Olympus camera... Not sure, but I'll make up my mind soon.

I hate video village. When the client demands it... blech. You just know you're in for a slow day.

​"Boum chicka waa waa" But no. Nothing sexy about it, really. Just working with colleagues on our free time to realize a short script we wrote.

​Oh yeah; always do. I'm more concerned about that than the camera...as you can probably deduce from my posts. I like to shoot primes though. Two would be fine.

BTW, the price of the camera doesn't fit into the budget of the film. If/when I buy this camera for this particular use it's going to be used for many other things as well. My main thing outside of this potential short is making documentaries, so that's a factor. For me, I do appreciate the suggestion of the Sony A7s; might be the best bet so I can exploit light in more flexible ways. Doing shots with practical lights on a low-budget film would be a very pragmatic choice, I think. Also, the idea of shooting handheld with Oly's 5-axis system is exciting. The Digital Bolex is also a player in all this. Of course, no wrong or right answers here. I've never been enamored with super pristine images, so that affects my choices too and opens up many more possibilities. Ultimately, I'm of the opinion that if you're a good collaborative creative filmmaker, you can make something decent with whatever gear; the camera matters, but not in such of a big way as some tend to think. It's just a delivery system to tell the story. The mailman is part of the process getting a new hardcover novel to the reader, but he's not the author, know what I mean? Well, maybe in that metaphor a camera is the copy editor...fact checker? I dunno, fill in the blanks.

​There's definitely a different vibe on set when things are being shot on film. That can be exploited by directors/producers that are canny, excuse the pun.

​1. Me. Maybe an iPhone simply because it's quirky and because I actually like limitations of equipment; forces one to be creative. 2. $10. No. All of it. 3. Romance

Yeah, I'm thinking of doing another short soon. Because of the subject and story, shooting on a "lo-fi" camera might be a good idea. I'm more interested in the emotion of the images rather than the technical achievement of them. That's fine for some stuff, but not really what I'm aiming for on my next go-round. Although, the thought of being able to be production flexible with a low light camera seems very practical. Shooting available with a discriminating eye could be fun.

Personally, I don't think there's a right or wrong answer, but welcome anyone else's outlook on their ideal. Also, this: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3824458/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

Just know that lenses have a focal length measurement (millimeters) and it doesn't matter what camera you try to attach it to, that number is what it is. the distance between the center of a lens or curved mirror and its focus.No reputable lens manufacturer is going to put inaccurate "equivalency" numbers on their lenses. They're going to put down the number that represent the actual physical measurements. The no reason to do it any other way It's kinda odd how any notion otherwise got stuck in your brain, but I know for someone starting all this imaging stuff and jargon, it can be discombobulating. FWIW, I've been shooting motion images and still for decades with cameras of all "sensor" sizes. 8mm up to 4x5. This FOV stuff is so second nature to me now that I just kinda visualize the FOV in my head based on the glass-mm/camera-format-size and carry on.

Not sure what the confusion is. mm's is mm's. What camera you put a 24mm on matters for FOV, but mm is a measurement. millimeter. People that use s35 sensors/filmstock don't have a different metric system than someone shooting with a full frame, 4x5" film, or a m43 sensor. Forget the cameras anyway. That's actually irrelevant. You're talking about a lens. On your glass it's the distance from the point where light rays converge to the point where they form a sharp image onto the focal plane. 50mm is 1 millimeters plus 49 other millimeters. If you're arguing otherwise you've been misinformed. The idea that film shooters have special math that is unique for them is ... well, not right. This issue really gets convoluted because folks new to all this stuff (and even some pro's apparently) tend to overthink it and conflate various camera terminology. But if you just consider the lens, ultimately it's pretty simple. Which is why, if I was shooting a low budget action film with an ASP-C sensor, I'd tend towards the 40mm lens, as it would be a nice "standard" FOV. Not too wide, not too tight. But nothing wrong with a lens with a bit longer FOV either, you just adapt to what you got and go. I wouldn't burn time worrying about 10mm. I'd worry more about other aspects of film making. Actor and camera blocking, sets, design, stunts, lighting, acting, EDITING. Holy crap, that's the stuff that matters more. Try not to get wrapped up in gear-centric-fetishism on the low end of film making. If all that other stuff is half-assed I don't care what FOV you have, whatever film you're trying to make is going to suck. Make the most of what you have and be creative around your limitations.

​I've used a similar feature on the LUMIX cameras. Not terribly impressed. Screws up the image too much. Anything in motion has an obvious effect to it. Your mileage may vary.

​"These are not the cameras for video you're looking for." "These are not the cameras for video we're looking for."

With so many other great options on the market for cheap video, does it really matter what Canon decides to do with their 5D model if it's inferior on the video side? I've been shooting on DSLR Canons for years now and I'm not really going to worry if in 2015 they decide to not be competitive with video anymore. I know lots of people fret about skin tone, so maybe with a Canon camera there's that subjective superiority (debatable, IMHO) and then what exactly? The RAW hacks? (not debatable, that's pretty cool) Lens investment? Brand loyalty? I'm not scared to move away from Canon if they move away from me. I'm niche market and I get that. They're not exactly selling to me. I wish they would. But if wishes were horses... Sure, I guess I'd like an excuse to consider buying a Canon for video. Without a really good one though I'll just look elsewhere. I suppose we'll wait and see what they do.

I like to let the director do what he/she wants and enjoy it. Maybe Gone Girl was yellow to portray the protagonists cowardly ways...? I personally don't agree with the notion that colors need to be accurate.

​Isn't the 600D an ASP-C sensor, essentially the same size as s35 motion picture film? A 32mm lens is a 32mm in this context. It's not the crop factor, camera bodies, or lenses alone that determines "cinematic look." I understand why this notion persists, but people starting out should recognize that there's no simple solution to achieving such an aesthetic. The difference in 10mm focal length and 2 f-stops isn't going to determine the cinematic look of your film. Personally, and only just regarding the technical side of things, I feel that motion blur, frame rate, and skillful lighting are the bigger factors of the cinematic look...but one man's opinion...others will go on and on about skin tones and dynamic range as if the foundation of the industry is wholly reliant on those notions. But please don't let me dissuade anyone from pursuing gear purchases on a gear-centric site to solve a problem ... that gear alone cannot solve ;-) My lecturing aside, if I had to make an action film with one of those lenses I'd choose the 40mm and shoot @f2.8 at 24fps and a 50 shutter speed. Lock that in and don't change it. I'd control exposure with ND filters, lighting, and ISO. Above all, have fun.

Noted.

Just talk tech on your forum. Got it. It is what it is. No problem.

Why's that? Off topic? Look, y'all can moderate your site anyway you see fit, but here's my defense: The original poster is asking about what it takes to make "filmic" images and what's a good camera to do it. I say it's not that simple. What's the big deal? I know this is a tech-centric website, but since film making is an art created by the craft of technology, is it unhelpful to encourage people to explore other aspects of the craft, such as "painting with light," rather than the technology? After all, knowing how to naturalistically use light in a shot is going to be many more factors of importance than the camera body it's shot with. It's also hard to do. You do it wrong and whatever camera you use will not look great. How's that opinion "unhelpful?" So many new creatives are entering this world of film making through DSLR and mirror less, and I've unfortunately known a few people that believe solving the film-look issue is possible with one simple purchase of a camera body. I just disagree with that notion. Is that truly unhelpful or do you just not like reading my opinion? If it's the latter, just say so and I'll skidaddle.