fuzzynormal

Give it to me, I'll try a few things out, and give you a detailed report 4th quarter of 2016.

I heard an interview recently with Vince Gilligan (WTF podcast) and it gets entertainingly tech wonky for a few minutes about 20 minutes in.  He basically explains his pipeline for Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul.  Bottom line, they did blind pre-pro tests with a bunch of digital and film cameras and they couldn't pick out which was which.
But, he said he still wanted to shoot on film.  And he had his own reasons for it.  If I'm gong to listen to anyone talk with authority about making cinema, it's going to be from a guy like that.
In the meantime, my analogy is that you're choosing a tool.  A paint brush.  You can use one made from the finest horse hair or one from nylon; still gotta know how to paint, right?
...And finally, there's a crazy wildcard in all of this.  Watching film PROJECTED is a whole 'nother experience.  Any of you actually remember what that's like?  Or gone to see an old movie house spool up a classic film for a screening?  If not, you should.  When the entire pipeline is non-digital, the details accumulate in a unique way that you can only get from analog.  
Sure, it's quaint, but it's also very charming; like listening to Duke Ellington on a lacquer 78. It may not be the highest quality, but maybe that's not always the point.

Probably 50% of the cinematic look is movement and sound design.
Look at Bloom's C300 mk II shot in London.... No cinematic movement, no interesting sound design... everyone cried "Video". You could shoot that on film and people would still scream "Video"... because the subject matter, movement and sound were more like what we expect from a video camera shooting stock footage.
The more technical 50% of the cinematic look, for me... DR, colour, highlight rolloff, shadows into perfect blacks, 2K+ resolution.
I look forward to the day that everyone has a 4K, 15 stop, perfect colour camera and the focus can be on movement and sound again.

Anything with some semblance of a story, really.  Combine that with good cinematography and it should be a winner.

These types of wonderful technological shots are great and impressive.  Now.  
To us in 2015 they're pretty, full of DR, sharp high resolution images.  Looks cool, right?  Well, here's where I project into the future a bit and make a prediction that might seem weird and off base, but here it goes:  None of that tech stuff is going to matter in a handful of years.  Your 14 year old nephew, who was born yesterday, is going to have at his fingertips the exact same capabilities you just witnessed in that video...and millions of other kids and motion picture enthusiasts will have that same capability.
That jaw dropping IQ and DR and color science just won't matter because it'll be readily available at Wal-Mart for $200.  The drone to fly it will cost $145, $110 after manufacture's rebate.  Let's not overlook the reality that this younger generation armed with this technology from the time they leave the womb is going use the narcissistic-social-media-shit out of it.  They'll probably spend less time OFF camera than on it.
So, we can all go ga-ga over how nice the video looks, and it does, (It's a nice video. I'd be proud of it if I did it) but without a good story behind it, all we're witnessing a glorified contemporary slideshow.  Which is fine, for the moment.
I firmly believe that those of us that hang their hat on the fact that they can attain technically superior images are going to be in trouble when that capability is so commonplace it's irrelevant.  But, that's my opinion.  Really really great IQ is reaching a democratization. 16K? 50 stops of DR?  That'll rival human eyesight, so where do you go then?  3D?  I dunno.  Maybe; not sure.
Regardless, what story you decide to actually tell with that capability is going to be the only thing that is important because the tech stuff just won't have the same value.
Hey, I could be totally wrong.  But I just feel it's going to be how you use the tool rather than the fact you have it.
Also, editing.  People that are good and inventive at editing.  Man, they're going to have an incredibly in-demand skill set. View "Watchtower of Turkey" to see how that ability harmonizes with inventive visuals.

"If you buy this bundle you are not an artist and never will be, because you do not care."
​Ha!  Pushing the boundaries of rhetoric, but you gotta do what you gotta do.  
Suffice to say, there's a perfectly legitimate possibility that an arrogant affluent rich kid with a hell of a lot of superior story ideas than industry professionals might end up with one of these cameras, simply because they just want something to shoot with, don't really know better because they're concentrating on story, and they'll then proceed to create something incredible...since, you know, filmmaking is kind of about effective storytelling, not sensor resolution.
I seriously don't know if this is your true sentiment, tongue-in-cheek satire, click-bait, or just slamming Canon because of some internal-debate-feud you have going in your mind.  
Doesn't matter because, regardless, it's a fun read, if for no other reason than all the "huh?"'s I got to do.  And yeah, it's silly marketing from Canon.  But entire brands are built upon silly marketing.
Honestly though, thanks for the funny words. 

I would go for Magic Bullet Looks !
More expensive but more versatile in my opinion.
It's an all-in-one tool, you will have more fun to play with it, it's perfect to start.
And there are a lot of tutorials on Youtube about how-to-use, like this one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z78NI-nL4o0
What you can do with Film Convert or Color Finale, you can do it with Magic Bullet Looks.
Also in Magic Bullet Looks you have the scopes, and it can be really helpful

Did this market research also say what percentage of still camera sales accounted for video purchases? Because all this doomsaying about how not adapting stills cameras for better video production will ruin companies is getting rather tiresome.

​Well, all I'm saying is regulation exists or not because of political clout.  Lots of things influence that clout.  Money, words, symbols, media metaphors, whatever.  FWIW, I personally don't mind if drones get regulated.  
Let's also consider this:  someone's going to die today because alcohol is a legal drug.  Another person is going to die today because of a legally permissive gun culture.   I'm not saying the way American govermnment works is right or wrong, just how I think it is. 
If you believe that you can organize a group of drone operators to influence, positively, future legislation then go for it.  That is how it's supposed to work, but I'm certainly more cynical and believe that would, realistically, be a lost cause for the reason stated above.

​Yup.  Although I hear the Lens Turbo II is a better bet.  I don't know, just the opines I've seen on the 'tubes.  
Is the quality the same?  Maybe.  I think they're probably all made by the same orphanage/factory in Zhōngnán.

​No, it's just a 33" "silk" translucent umbrella.  Like so:

Super simple.  4pm-ish sunlight key  through a silk umbrella.  No fill.

i hope drones get banned altogether.  will save us seeing any more tacky wannabe aerial footage.
 

Depends on what you want to do.  I wouldn't recommend necessarily making a wildly dynamic food video "just because."  If it fits what you want to do or are hired to do, sure... but there's something to be said in making a video that's a bit more timeless and classic too.
I don't do extreme food cooking like I'm base jumping of El Capitan, so that commercial looks a bit silly to me personally.

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.
Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.
If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.
Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.
If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

As an American I can tell you we fret about many trivial things and are lax regarding the profound, but there are indeed idiots that fly these things without much consideration.  They are dangerous in a way, but I feel this is more newsworthy as an item of media paranoia than a serious peril to anything.
Keep in mind this sort of thing is a way for politicians to "get tough" on a perceived ambitious threat --that, oh by the way, just so happens to be an industry that doesn't have any lobbyist dollars to tell them otherwise...or any type of social traction.  It's a soft target.  That's the pragmatic political reason these quads are destined to be regulated drastically.
If for some reason the nomenclature for these things was "Remote Controlled Model Helicopters" or "RCMH's" rather than the loaded word "Drones" I doubt this would even be much of a public interest story, to be honest.  

So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* 
This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life.  Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter.
4 decades ago, great motion picture  IQ wasn't a consumer possibility.  8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then.  3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's.  That stuff is dated.  It bears the mark of the 1980's.  However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way.
The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain.  
For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production.  I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic.  I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images.  And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.'  Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop?  
Anyway, that's all part of the mix too.
This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution.  I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp.
Any thoughts?
* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.

So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* 
This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life.  Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter.
4 decades ago, great motion picture  IQ wasn't a consumer possibility.  8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then.  3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's.  That stuff is dated.  It bears the mark of the 1980's.  However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way.
The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain.  
For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production.  I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic.  I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images.  And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.'  Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop?  
Anyway, that's all part of the mix too.
This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution.  I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp.
Any thoughts?
* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.

So I'm kind of believing that we've hit, for all practical purposes, a kind of pinnacle of digital IQ in motion pictures.* 
This does NOT mean that cameras stop improving, but I'm implying that from now onward if "you" (a typically casual end-user consumer) buy a newly released camera, you're gonna have imaging that will look great for the rest of your life.  Yes, in the future the DR will be wider and resolution will probably be 16+k plus, but even so, watching an image on a 80" monitor from 10 feet away will kinda look similar to 4K, even good 1080, for that matter.
4 decades ago, great motion picture  IQ wasn't a consumer possibility.  8mm film stuff shot then looks like it was shot then.  3 decades ago consumers were shooting NTSC video on crappy CCD's.  That stuff is dated.  It bears the mark of the 1980's.  However, if you go film a scenic of, say, Florence this afternoon then it's still gonna look great 4 decades from now and onward, which is kinda cool --and sad in a way.
The advance of technology is wonderful, I'm just musing on what's lost when we gain.  
For instance, personally, I have a tendency to make my pristine footage look retro through lens choices and post-production.  I feel images need some sorts of "flaws" to feel authentic.  I grew up in a darkroom, so I nurture that aesthetic nostalgia in my images.  And, of course, many people love instagramming their stills, so there's still a strong desire to 'analog' the 'digital.'  Could this tendency be an attempt to psychologically grasp a past that's easier to comprehend rather than the future that is rushing to us non-stop?  
Anyway, that's all part of the mix too.
This sort of stuff, maybe it matters more to us older folks that have this visual legacy that bears the mark of technological evolution.  I suspect new kids aren't hung up on this sort of thing, they just go do stuff, and they get to do it without an obvious technological time-stamp.
Any thoughts?
* talking' 'bout 2d imaging. 3d and holograms will surely come along somehow, but that's a different story.

​To hell with you guys.  I'm going to shoot an entire film in real time, with 28 different scenes, and in one take --from the top of the empire state building.  http://gearburn.com/2012/06/the-aware-2-worlds-smallest-and-fastest-gigapixel-camera/

​To hell with you guys.  I'm going to shoot an entire film in real time, with 28 different scenes, and in one take --from the top of the empire state building.  http://gearburn.com/2012/06/the-aware-2-worlds-smallest-and-fastest-gigapixel-camera/

​This is very true.  You have to be discriminating to discern it, but that can also be very telling and informative; always lots of scuttlebutt comments that have bad footage=bad camera, however.  (and yes I just used the word scuttlebutt) 

​I do entire shoots with 5-axis.  I love it; works for me.  
I agree with your opinion that stabilization can look very artificial when the camera is moving.  It's a tool on my EM5II that works very well for grabbing static shots without a tripod (which I do often) and for mimicking a short slider shot...but you have to practice at it, much like using a glide-cam type rig.
For much of the corporate crap I do, I prefer a quiet lens.  For those shoots I'm trying to keep what I do as neutral and transparent as possible.  I don't want to call attention to my shooting and/or editing.  I put their stories at the forefront and the production style is conservative.
I also concur with your assertion, Implement the 5-axis technology in an intelligent pragmatic way and it's a wonderful thing.  
We all should keep in mind that a lot of shooters you see on the youtubes haven't a clue or are just messing around with testing, (5 minutes of walking though as park handheld?  Who would use that in an edit anyway?) so judging by their work is a mistake. 
And let's be honest, a lot of prosumer enthusiasts can also be talent-limited, assuming that IS or OIS is some sort of panacea that'll make their footage wonderful. Um, no.  If you stink as a shooter in general, your stabilized footage will do the same. (those Canadian guys from that camera store come to mind.  They're gear geeks and can tell you the ins and outs of a camera's functionality, yes, but they're not the best shooters and the footage always looks subpar to what a particular camera can do.)  
Finally, don't forget, if your camera has 5-axis stabilization, you can always turn it off too. 

​There's no singular answer.  They're all good.  It comes down to what kind of footage/style you're trying to get.  If you can articulate that, then you can get some really good advice here.
(Not from me though, but from other folks that seriously analyze the IQ stuff.  I tend to believe it's how you use a camera, not the gear itself.  This opinion of mine is in the minority so take what I say with a grain of salt.) 
At any rate, I tend to believe if you can't articulate in detail what you're trying to do, then the answer can seriously be: "get anything." This would be because you're not likely not going to be doing much considered or sophisticated shooting anyway.  That being the case, just about any new camera will allow you to grab some pretty great shots.
Except Fuji.  Don't buy Fuji for video.  Even that IQ is too lousy for me.