fuzzynormal

This is related to the film making tangent going on in the motion cadence thread.
I like new cameras.  I own way too many of them.  But, I also like to remind myself that the camera doesn't really matter all that much.  We can accomplish more by worrying about the storytelling craft rather than the technical craft.  And I really enjoy the technical craft, but it's not expression.  It's engineering.  Sure there's certain creativity there, but I'm now trying to be more of the architect.  (not succeeding yet, but trying)  
As indy film makers I believe too many of us strive for technical achievement at the expense of the other ingredients.  This website is aimed squarely at jack-of-all-trade sorts of people, but ironically focuses it's editorial content mostly at gear.  Not a bad thing, mind you, it is what it is for practical reasons.
Still, many new film makers don’t need motion picture cameras at all.  This is a cool evolution of the craft that is happening more and more as we move deeper into the digital era.  Some directors are so creative and inventive all it takes is their imagination —and a lot of time locked away in their bedroom in front of a computer.  Well, okay, the camera is a requirement for some of the work, but it’s not the priority.
Has anyone been following the film making career of Don Hertzfeldt?  His films are gems of emotional existential storytelling.  Hardly any of his techniques rely on fancy camera gear.  Rather, using lush soundscapes and crudely drawn stick figures the guy is able to make narratives that are completely engaging.  It’s decidedly low-fi film production, but by no means does it lack in sophistication.  Quite the opposite.
On the other end of the spectrum are technical achievements such as Erik Wernquist’s “Wanderers”
It’s a CGI masterpiece.  By Hollywood standards it’s not CGI that’s an overwhelming violent spectacle, but it’s spectacular for so many other reasons.  His images, familiar narration (a famous scientist), and storytelling prowess, combine to create awe and inspiration.  Images used to create his short were mostly from NASA.  With a large dose of patience at the seat of his 3D software he’s created an extremely memorable film.
These are just two examples that I’ve been impressed with over the past few years, but many many more are out there.
When it comes to films wherein the motion picture camera is not the primary tool what are some of your favorites?
It's such an exciting era of film making!

​Good time to ask then.  If it is, how so?  
Because most stuff here is gear talk.  I always thought EOSHD was mostly (not all) for people that were trying to do low-budget cinema with this new era of consumer cameras; so very tech-centric.  I mean, I don't mind that, but threads about the artistic side of things don't seem to generate much discussion.
Seems more about the technical craft.  After all, talk about dynamic range and skin tones on some upcoming new camera and a 10 page thread is likely.
Hey, if I'm wrong, no problem.  Just curious to hear from the head honcho.

This is related to the film making tangent going on in the motion cadence thread.
I like new cameras.  I own way too many of them.  But, I also like to remind myself that the camera doesn't really matter all that much.  We can accomplish more by worrying about the storytelling craft rather than the technical craft.  And I really enjoy the technical craft, but it's not expression.  It's engineering.  Sure there's certain creativity there, but I'm now trying to be more of the architect.  (not succeeding yet, but trying)  
As indy film makers I believe too many of us strive for technical achievement at the expense of the other ingredients.  This website is aimed squarely at jack-of-all-trade sorts of people, but ironically focuses it's editorial content mostly at gear.  Not a bad thing, mind you, it is what it is for practical reasons.
Still, many new film makers don’t need motion picture cameras at all.  This is a cool evolution of the craft that is happening more and more as we move deeper into the digital era.  Some directors are so creative and inventive all it takes is their imagination —and a lot of time locked away in their bedroom in front of a computer.  Well, okay, the camera is a requirement for some of the work, but it’s not the priority.
Has anyone been following the film making career of Don Hertzfeldt?  His films are gems of emotional existential storytelling.  Hardly any of his techniques rely on fancy camera gear.  Rather, using lush soundscapes and crudely drawn stick figures the guy is able to make narratives that are completely engaging.  It’s decidedly low-fi film production, but by no means does it lack in sophistication.  Quite the opposite.
On the other end of the spectrum are technical achievements such as Erik Wernquist’s “Wanderers”
It’s a CGI masterpiece.  By Hollywood standards it’s not CGI that’s an overwhelming violent spectacle, but it’s spectacular for so many other reasons.  His images, familiar narration (a famous scientist), and storytelling prowess, combine to create awe and inspiration.  Images used to create his short were mostly from NASA.  With a large dose of patience at the seat of his 3D software he’s created an extremely memorable film.
These are just two examples that I’ve been impressed with over the past few years, but many many more are out there.
When it comes to films wherein the motion picture camera is not the primary tool what are some of your favorites?
It's such an exciting era of film making!

What I think is the only way it can be.
Me!  Me!  Look at me!  I'm typing on the Internet! Validate my opinion.  Validate me!  Let me know the camera I own is awesome.  Tell me I make great choices in the things I buy!!
Wait, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion?  :-)
I actually like all frame rates depending on what I wanna do. Seems like mixed frame rates in the same film could be exploited as a narrative tool as well.
...and slow frame rates too. I once shot some stuff @15 0degree shutter  for a cool effect.  

What I think is the only way it can be.
Me!  Me!  Look at me!  I'm typing on the Internet! Validate my opinion.  Validate me!  Let me know the camera I own is awesome.  Tell me I make great choices in the things I buy!!
Wait, are you agreeing or disagreeing with my opinion?  :-)
I actually like all frame rates depending on what I wanna do. Seems like mixed frame rates in the same film could be exploited as a narrative tool as well.
...and slow frame rates too. I once shot some stuff @15 0degree shutter  for a cool effect.  

Not the movies I've made. I shoot mostly available natural light.
And you might want to ask Terrence Malick how he feels about your assertions.
Still... One of my favorite films is Casablanca --so I do get your meaning. 

​Never was.  That's always been the point of the place.

Anyone that thinks they know what I want or should have for my work without knowing anything about me makes me skeptical of that person's opinion.  You're not me.  I'm not you.
My advice is to try and have a little empathy.  Attempt to see things from a POV that's not your own.  That's a healthy thing to do in life.  Avoid being intellectually calcified.
Regardless, wasn't the Bolex was always meant to be niche?  If anything, they might be ahead of the curve as I think the future of digital video is going to move into specialized gear and less mass market...as the most likely scenario is that the mass consumer market is going to continue to dwindle for cameras.

​Never was.  That's always been the point of the place.

1. Get a warehouse.
2. Get a logo.
3. Spend the rest on a sales team that will bring clients through the door.

Awesome, thanks for that.  Although, I must admit, I've seen DSLR's rigged up bigger than that film gear!

Thanks.  I'm getting close to doing the online for my documentary.  I'll dabble with your settings and see how they play.

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

I'm just talking from my own POV, obviously.  You don't have to apply this to your own reality.  Everything I'm writing is conditional to my anecdotal experience, but I'll add this:  
In my opinion there's nothing special about great IQ.  
You may like it.  You may want it.  You may value it... but it's become something of a commodity now.  Great IQ is now everywhere and only getting better.  Being part of film fests on and off for 15 years illustrates this to me all the time; wandering the inter webs even more. 
I just think if you're running on the IQ track, you're in a race that everybody is going to win.  You, the guy doing this for decades --and you, the middle-school school newbie.  You're all pretty much at the same pace with a huge crowd.  The guy with a T2i is really only a few paces behind the guy with a Black Magic cam who's only a step or two behind Alexa dude.  And more people join that crowd of racers everyday.
Now, if you chase composition, cinematography, editing... motion picture storytelling --and learn how to do it better than most, you might be able to put some distance between yourself and the competition.  You're by yourself, ahead of the pack.  People are more likely to pay attention to you; if, for no other reason, it's because they can see you better. 
None of that means you shouldn't pursue an awesome new imaging tool.  Heck no, having great gear is awesome!  But (if you're in this career at a non-specialized level) covet gear above skill at your own peril.  And it's so easy to focus on gear.  It's tangible, factual, logical.  No problem.  1+1=2.  Easy math.  Easy is fun too.  
Difficult and rewarding artistic endeavors are typically not.  They're ethereal, metaphorical, ideological, messy, frustrating.
Again, just my perspective/experience.  And I'm not terribly artistic, honestly...just wish I would have had the sense to try and develop that skill/craft/art earlier in my career rather than concentrating on acquiring cameras.

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

To be sure a lot of imaging is needed where creative artistic storytelling isn't required, just getting the shot in a pragmatic way. "ENG" style if you will.  So I do think there will always be a market for improving IQ cameras that handle extreme situation with impressive resolution and low-light capabilities.  Plus, the upper echelon of the motion picture industry will continue to be cutting edge, and I'll always be curious about that gear.
For my career arc, such as it is, chasing ownership of that stuff just isn't going to yield me much reward and, if one is not on a specialized industry track, I don't really see how it's going to benefit most future imaging careerists either.
Everything is gear-related is getting highly democratized.  I know for a fact that I have 5 consumer cameras on my shelf right now that far exceeds the image quality technology Kurosawa had.  I also know for a fact that I'll never do anything remotely as impressive in motion pictures that he did.  The best I can hope for is to be derivative in a creative way.  
So ultimately, yes, one camera or lens package will be better for a particular shoot, but is it "better-enough," if you knowatimean?
My personal "ah-ha" moment really hit home recently as I slogged through my documentary film edit.  Shot on a GM1 and a GX7 with Olympus primes, the IQ just kept exceeding my expectations and was beyond good enough for that project.  Keep in mind it's just 8 bit h.264.  Even so, I feel like I can push and pull it enough in the grade to keep me happy and maintain a nice high IQ standard.    

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

I love NAB, been more than a few times, but maybe it's my age and where I am in life, but the more stuff I see the more I'm starting to believe that the tech has maxed out for me.  So I ask myself, when any semi-affluent middle-school kid has access to comparable IQ that I have, what's the point of chasing the best IQ?
12 stops of DR vs. 14 stops of DR.  This color science vs. that color science.  If not applied to a good story and a foundation of compelling shots, using the best isn't really much of an advantge.  Love great new capabilities.  It's exciting, but rarely do I leverage it in any similar exciting storytelling way. 
For far too long I've focused on playing with the cool toys in the sandbox.  Ultimately, I'm thinking I would have been better off learning how to build a superior sandcastle.
All one has to do is wander around Vimeo to see a bunch of decent looking IQ and lousy filmmaking.  
And god forbid you're on a film festival selection committee.  So much stuff looks great these days, you're forced to sit through feeble storytelling until you realize the narrative isn;t going to say anything remotely interesting, is just a bunch of hoary tropes, and the story doesn't come close to matching the imaging.
Dang near everybody has great IQ devices...and if they don't they will soon...even if they're not actively searching it out to acquire it.  It will come with their phone, watch, eyeglasses, pocket drone, or whatever.
For me it's time to ignore the camera and go back to the concentrating on ideas and story.  That skill is truly where any advantage in this career will allow advancement.

I've learned to tolerate rigging up consumer cameras; mostly fretting around the audio side of things.  It works for me after a fashion, but sometimes you just need to shoot fast and easy.  Cameras like this are coveted for those reasons.  When you're not striving for some sort of cinematic DOF and doing corporate, this type of gear is ideal...still, all they had to do would be to allow a mount.  I think people would be freaking out (in a good way) right about now.

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. 

Once I got my hands on the FS700 you better believe I abused the slow-mo.  Had fun doing it too.