fuzzynormal

So this is sort of an informal poll as well as a question.  First, which film here do you find more entertaining and/or interesting?
https://vimeo.com/212758265
https://vimeo.com/108018156
There's not a right or wrong answer, just curious about which y'all find more engaging.
Now, regardless of which vid you chose, why did you choose it?  And a final follow up, how do you think this sort of thing affects the future of the "industry," if at all.
Cheers!

Cool answers.  As mentioned, no right or wrong answers.  I suppose it's a loaded question, sure.  Technical accomplishment vs. an artistic one.  
I find it compelling because of my personal experiences.  I mean, my main gig throughout most of my career (and still if I'm being honest) was mid-budget corporate stuff.  So I did a bunch of things with decent gear, looked clean and slick, but was boring as heck.
Myself, I find the goofy kid in Sundance more interesting as, to me, it has a sort of ramshackle Andy Kaufman satirization vibe to it.  Also he has a unique "voice."  he can take poorly shot video and manipulate the context of it to tell a curious story.  Thus, it's not "bad" footage at that point.  No small feat.  

Well, they can actually be mundane as well.  Doesn't seem to matter.  
Personally, there's no way I would have ever had the foresight to be aggressively prolific in order to be essentially a modern day "motivational speaker" on social media, but it's working for him financially.  He deserves acknowledgement for that.  Ain't my bag, but whatever.  That motivational culture seems odd yet enduring throughout the generations.
I never willingly listened to dubstep either and a lot of young people made a lot of other young people famous and wealthy because of it.
It'll be curious if the financial reality of this sort of vlogging work actually makes him fulfilled emotionally a few years down the road.  That whole sort of career seems a bit 'ouroboros' to me...but, again, that's me.

I don't know about that, but I do know that there's no basement at the Alamo.
https://youtu.be/M8YApT-Eyn8
And then the guy that made these commercials then went on to run Apple computers.  It's, like, all the same reality distortion field, man.  It's full circle.

Well, like I said, I'm more of a luma guy, less a chroma dude.  I'd much rather look at lighting that's dramatic than look at a flat over-lit scene with perfect colors.

When I took the "Pepsi Challenge" in the 1983, I chose Coke.  Man, the college girl running the thing was ticked off.  What can I say?  I dislike cola in general, but the Pepsi was and just way too sweet.

So this is sort of an informal poll as well as a question.  First, which film here do you find more entertaining and/or interesting?
https://vimeo.com/212758265
https://vimeo.com/108018156
There's not a right or wrong answer, just curious about which y'all find more engaging.
Now, regardless of which vid you chose, why did you choose it?  And a final follow up, how do you think this sort of thing affects the future of the "industry," if at all.
Cheers!

Yup.  I have a few cameras that capably handle 90% of my work, but when I'm doing something more serious or particular, I'll rent what serves the need.

Well, as mentioned, Portuguese is Portuguese and Spanish is Spanish.

What would a lens at that's 45mm F2.8 on a medium format camera need to be on a M43 cam in order to hit the same DOF equivalency?  Or, how about a 80mm f1.9?  
Same question for those lenses to achieve similar DOF equiv. on a full-frame camera?
Having exceptionally shallow DOF with a wide FOV while shooting motion pictures does create a cool effect.  Kind of a 3D-separation-from-the-background-illusion...and then there's the subjective issue of bokeh --and also how big glass/focal plane light gets bent in that medium-format-way; as it needs to fall across a larger space.  I don't know how to exactly explain it...is it sort of a parallax thing, maybe?

My thought is that we all fall into the roles we decide for ourselves.  If you like playing with camera knobs, you focus on that.  If you'd rather tell a story, you focus on that... and lots of values in between. 
For instance, trying to break away from my established ( read: lazy ) career path is not easy.  Essentially, my time has been spent being a passable craftsperson, but not a terribly impressive creative.  So to switch priorities is difficult.  Having the confidence to actually tell a worthwhile story, develop an interesting cinematic voice, and shape the tone of stories with wise choices is so much more demanding than figuring out colors of skintone, you know? 
Because of that, falling back into thought processes that are a distraction from successful storytelling happens because dabbling with the tech is more comfortable.
( after all, look at my writing here )
So, to be fair, kids doing "content" are often just trying to figure stuff out -- while meanwhile so much of "content" is not exactly narratively creative.  Sort of a double whammy, that.  Those that truly have an itch for telling stories should eventually get there, but you're right, it's easy to go sideways with tech and lose sight of a more interesting career.  That's my anecdotal experience for sure.

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they?  I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.   

Yup, I'm definitely with you on that as well.  I'm just not eager to stretch my ISO that much.  I mean 800, a fast lens, and slower shutter will easily expose a face lit by a small campfire.  That's pretty dim.  And any camera made in the last two years will more or less give you that ability.  Scenarios that are darker absolutely exist, but if you have a choice, best to try to avoid such settings.  
Running 6400 ISO simply because you want to stay at a relatively slow f4 seems silly and wholly counter-productive to me.  If you know you're consistently going into the dark, I'd certainly suggest making other gear decisions.
Such as just getting a low-light-high-performance camera like an A7s.

Well, yes, of course they should. You should be absolutely entitled to dictate the free laborious direction of talented strangers.  
You're obviously a very special person that deserves to have their every wish granted, your laundry done for you, a hot bowl of mac 'n cheese served on the dining room table, and your jammies laid out for you before beddy-bye each and every evening. 

Well, yes, of course they should. You should be absolutely entitled to dictate the free laborious direction of talented strangers.  
You're obviously a very special person that deserves to have their every wish granted, your laundry done for you, a hot bowl of mac 'n cheese served on the dining room table, and your jammies laid out for you before beddy-bye each and every evening. 

As an official grumpy old man, I support this grumpy man rant.

Yup, I'm definitely with you on that as well.  I'm just not eager to stretch my ISO that much.  I mean 800, a fast lens, and slower shutter will easily expose a face lit by a small campfire.  That's pretty dim.  And any camera made in the last two years will more or less give you that ability.  Scenarios that are darker absolutely exist, but if you have a choice, best to try to avoid such settings.  
Running 6400 ISO simply because you want to stay at a relatively slow f4 seems silly and wholly counter-productive to me.  If you know you're consistently going into the dark, I'd certainly suggest making other gear decisions.
Such as just getting a low-light-high-performance camera like an A7s.

You don't have to sort through all that to understand where quality content is originating.  Also, algorithms do the heavy lifting, humans then work through the smaller samples.  
As noted, that's why I think human curation will be a luxury service in the near future.  Because it's time consuming and of value.  When everything's an ocean of information, those that offer you a chance to wade into a clean heated pool where you're nice and comfy...well, that has high worth.

Yup, I'm definitely with you on that as well.  I'm just not eager to stretch my ISO that much.  I mean 800, a fast lens, and slower shutter will easily expose a face lit by a small campfire.  That's pretty dim.  And any camera made in the last two years will more or less give you that ability.  Scenarios that are darker absolutely exist, but if you have a choice, best to try to avoid such settings.  
Running 6400 ISO simply because you want to stay at a relatively slow f4 seems silly and wholly counter-productive to me.  If you know you're consistently going into the dark, I'd certainly suggest making other gear decisions.
Such as just getting a low-light-high-performance camera like an A7s.

With current camera sensitivity across all brands you wouldn't have to.  If the ambient light "floor" is decent for what you require, then you can concentrate on using small simple elements for moderate fill.  I do this often with my documentary production.  Every situation is different though.  And other shooters have different tastes in lighting.  Ironically,  I'm more of a minimalist/naturalist.  But knowing what's needed or might be needed is the main thing.
For example, more than a few people here on EOSHD use modest implements and make it work.
I used to be in a shitty bar band and I used to do video production for it as well.  Often I'd work with the venue to adjust lights on hand.  Without fail they were always positioned wrong and set to unflattering angles.  With only a little tweaking and collaborations with the bar we could usually improve it.  Assuming they tolerated my input and modifications.  The main thing was typically keeping the illumination variance under control and creating useful pools of light for the singer and band members.  The other big thing was to avoid direct key.  Anything straight on ruined the vibe.  The lighting had to still have some drama to it.

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they?  I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.   

Yeah, it's stupid, but, my goodness, these things are all moderately comparable, aren't they?  I'd willingly take any of those cameras and shoot stuff.   

Here's my take:  "Content" is its own word. "Filmmaker" is a different one.  The latter needn't concern themselves too much about the former. 
I respect content creators for YouTube --as I don't have the motivation to do it, but "content" is not really art; it's not really filmmaking, is it?

Here's my take:  "Content" is its own word. "Filmmaker" is a different one.  The latter needn't concern themselves too much about the former. 
I respect content creators for YouTube --as I don't have the motivation to do it, but "content" is not really art; it's not really filmmaking, is it?

Here's my take:  "Content" is its own word. "Filmmaker" is a different one.  The latter needn't concern themselves too much about the former. 
I respect content creators for YouTube --as I don't have the motivation to do it, but "content" is not really art; it's not really filmmaking, is it?