fuzzynormal

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.

​Indeed. And after all, if you really wanted to, you can make footage from an actual film camera look like video with a few tricks. And you can go the other direction with an electronic camera. If getting the closest right out of the cam is the biggest issue though, then it seems to me the BM cameras offer that. I still stick by my point though. If you apply skill to your shooting and post that's how you make digital look like film. The camera body is a factor, but a much smaller one than a lot of people tend to think it is. Of course, learning applied craft is harder than buying stuff, so... Round and round.

Yeah, I've been putting off uploading the thing, but I'll place it online and add a link. Ultimately I'm of the opinion that naturalistic lighting matters a lot --and how you take advantage of that light with your selection of lenses. In my short film, the idea was that most of the movie shots are memories from the "unreliable narrators" so the images are deliberately pushed pretty hard to not look realistic. Colors are exaggerated and stylized. All decisions that add to the "filmic" look. But the camera body? Kind of the least of the worries to consider, IMHO. Just about any camera made in the past few years will do the job.

My biggest peeve with this sort of question (and it's a legitimate question, I'm not bashing the OP) is the phrase "filmic." You can make just about any camera look "videoish" or look "filmic." It's not really the camera that does it. You see my little user icon there? It's a GM1 with a old Pentax a110 25mm lens on it. I shot a short film on it. In a film festival in which it was screened a lot of the positive comments were how the short looked very "filmic" compared to other entires. I did a pretty aggressive color grade too. (considering how flimsy the narrative was, the aesthetics were the only positive reviews I got!) The other cameras used in the same screening block were the Canon 1Dc, a RED, and a FS100. All great cameras. Point is, it's what you do with your camera and how you apply your knowledge, skills, and craft (aka: how it's lit) that ultimately makes the difference. You can't just buy a piece of gear and think "okay, that tick box is checked, my stuff will look like a movie now." That said, BM. Best dynamic range. DOF is over rated and over used nowadays.

And here we go again.

I'd also like to hear any testimony regarding editing on Resolve. If anyone has more stories to share, that would be great.

​Of course, the other thing to keep in mind: 35mm motion picture film has a smaller exposure area than a "full frame" 35mm still camera. Closer to an ASP-C sensor.

​It's ungraded footage from the Panasonic Gx7. Their "Standard" color setting with color and contrast tuned all the way down (-5). It's the Olympus 45mm m43 lens on the interview. I think the footage looks good because that particular room had a decent mix of soft ambient daylight, some non-harsh fluorescent adding some nice fill, and it all falls off into darkness deeper in the background, giving subjects in the middle of the room nice contrast separation from the background. All I did for the interview shot at this location was add some mild backlight. Even though I like my gx7, I'd give more credit to the lighting available at that location than the gear!

Deja Vu all over again. If you've ever been an indy musician all this kinda stuff gets wearily familiar. Expect it for "filmmakers" too. Lots of young people on the market struggling for a PR advantage and there will always be places like this attempting to monetize on it. Digital democracy: double edged sword. This Vimeo channel might be directed by a bunch of young earnest types, and could evolve into something useful, but I've earned enough wisdom to start with skepticism on this sort of offer. And here's a tip: If your PR video features a VO by a guy that can't enunciate and sounds like it's recorded on an iPhone, I'll take that as a clue that it's not exactly a professional service. I could be wrong. If so, good luck.

​No. All separate channels, eight in total. Yikes, it would be worthless otherwise. http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=180477

The reason why there's not a lot of info on how to get good footage straight from the camera is because lighting is always variable from shot to shot. You could set up something ideal for a building in 9 am sunlight that would look terrible @1pm. The shadows shift, there's more blacks in one shot, less in another. When you shoot with post grading in mind you source your stuff kind of generically --knowing you have flexibility afterwards. Ultimately, the most viable solution for you is to find some sort of personally-created balance on the shots to find an acceptable compromise. That's totally subjective on you, so it's difficult finding that sort of answer online. I've done this on my Lumix using STD and then dialing in my contrast and color to what I think looks best for my subject matter. The good news is that you have 3 Custom settings you can create. Using this you can make color options for 3 different scenarios you typically encounter and dial in the best color/contrast for each. i.e.: Morning C1, Afternoon C2, DeepShadows C3, whatever...

Here's the Azden SGM2x on location from a b-roll excerpt. You can see my co-director in the upper left of the screen holding the shotgun about 3.5 feet from the guy at which she points the mic, and the pickup the mic gets from the woman in which she does NOT aim the shotgun. The mic was plugged directly into a Zoom H1. The audio compression of these clips I made is probably too high, but this should give you a hint at real-world performance: http://www.path88files.com/Mieko/TESTS/Chikori-San_Printer1_bRoll.mp4 Also, here's that ew100 lav wireless in action with the H1. Personally, I can't imagine a shooter not wanting some sort of wireless mic system! http://www.path88files.com/Mieko/TESTS/Chikori-San_Printer_1.mp4

A long time ago I did a video for my brother, following a rock band on the road and used a Zoom R16 to record their gigs onstage. Worked great. 4 mics on the drums (kick, snare, overheads), 2 on gtrs, 2 on VOX. Here's exerpts: http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=190652 | http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=196703 | http://www.icompositions.com/music/song.php?sid=189632 | We had a pretty talented guy on the audio desk in post with some killer skills and mixing components, but he was able to do a lot because we captured a decent foundation of sound. The flexible thing about this gear is that we could set it up ourselves without getting in the way of the venue's PA guy. We just split the vox lines and did the other mics ourselves during setup, about a 7 minute process. No computers, thing runs on batteries, uses cheap SD cards. It doesn't offer the best sound pre-amp-wise, but it's so simple to use that it fit very well for our needs. For one local gig we also used a Mackie 1620i with an Apple laptop. (the 1620i is pretty cheap used) Much smoother preamps. That thing's audio was sweet, offered a ton of mic'ing flexibility, and had such a clean sound, much more than the R16... but certainly more high maintenance than the Zoom.

I know you don't want to do it, but the best audio solution would be a wireless lav. I don't think you'd be able to grab better audio with a shotgun in a big room. You can use a shotgun such as the MKH-416, but unless it's close to the subject it's not going to sound all that great. Cutting corners on getting good audio would be a mistake IMHO. For what it's worth, I've used the Sennheiser ew100 without any problems for a few years. Good luck regardless!

​On a mic stand? Boom? If you need to get an innocuous mic into a wedding ceremony, shouldn't it be a wireless lav system?

With audio, it's not so much about the mic as it is with mic placement...just saying.

Yeah, about that A7s....

​Like all things, it is and it isn't.

​Yeah, it's funny to pixel peep at the full res image 'kuz when you look at it there's kind of a "hey, bit of image grain there..." and then when you zoom your image viewer 1:1 you realize that it's actually billions of stars layered as if sand on a beach. Dave Bowman was right.

I liked that series because it's ridiculous. I consider that kind of exaggerated impossible action stuff campy and fun.

​Oh yeah, I really liked 5th Element. Campy B-Movie enjoyment. Lucy should have been the same, but it tried to get serious. Luc can't really get serious. He doesn't have the chops for it. Still, fun director.

If you want to talk about lenses and practical application of them to achieve philosophical ennui, you can always check this out: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2015/02/image/a/warn/

Lucy was a good movie? Seemed to me like a director with big ideas losing control of them all or not having a decent plan for them in the first place. Appreciate the ambition, but it was way too silly even though it wanted to be serious. ​Yup. What they do in post with their skills and tech is incredible.

First of all, are you the filmmaker? I'll assume so...? Anyway, Question: "What is the point of Zeiss ZF Primes?" My answer: People like you use them because they give you unique image quality. How important is that unique IQ to the overall production? It depends. I do believe that if you're capable of creating good content that's engaging (and you are/do) the viewer isn't going to care if one lens is somewhat superior than another. Is that what you're insinuating? Personally, I try to prioritize creativity over intense technicality in my productions. For instance, I'm far more impressed with your decision to create a beautiful sequence of running shots through the woods than I am about whatever lens or camera you shot it on. If you're comfortable with the images you get from more affordable lenses and cameras, there's nothing wrong with that as far as I'm concerned. Some filmmakers (many on this website) prioritize the technical craft, some worry more about the art. Filmmakers craft with both, obviously, but I tend to think the former is so much more important than the latter. Neither is the wrong approach though. If you like twisting the knobs, that's perfectly fine. Still, I'd rather watch a film by someone with something to say with their images rather than someone trying to show me their most technically accomplished images. And, of course, if you're working with a crew you can rely on the technical expertise of colleagues while concentrating on the creative, so that's all part of the mix too. Plus, ultimately, the editor of this film kicked ass. Great images, yes, but the rhythm and flow of the material was perfect.