fuzzynormal

I think Oly might get locked into throttling the video side of the sensor tech because of who they're buying 'em from.  Some sort of competitive clause, perhaps?
At any rate, Oly is rumored to be adding 4k to it's next gen of cams.  And I'm a fan of their models.  I'd rather shoot with an Oly than a Panasonic or Canon, fer instance.  But it's a nuance.  I like Oly's viewfinder and ergos, but I use 2 GX85's because the 4k is a good fit for a production I'm doing.
Personally I think it's all good at this point, going forward.  If you pushed me out the door and told me I had to shoot with any upmarket consumer stills/video camera that came out this year (or next), I'd be fine with that.

Yeah, I'm totally guilty on some of that stuff myself...

Vimeo is the target of a lot of consternation these days, but I do appreciate their ability to curate some amusing stuff.  Maybe they're like me and have become burnt out on the millennial twee...  
https://vimeo.com/177375994
That is all.  Good day!
 

Vimeo is the target of a lot of consternation these days, but I do appreciate their ability to curate some amusing stuff.  Maybe they're like me and have become burnt out on the millennial twee...  
https://vimeo.com/177375994
That is all.  Good day!
 

Vimeo is the target of a lot of consternation these days, but I do appreciate their ability to curate some amusing stuff.  Maybe they're like me and have become burnt out on the millennial twee...  
https://vimeo.com/177375994
That is all.  Good day!
 

All cameras are good these days.  If you're still a spec sheet nerd, good for you.  The pros I know will use anything that ultimately does the job.  Even cheap "plasticy" cameras with lower build quality.  Hey, sometimes you don't need a camera to last 5-10 years.  Honestly, with the way the market moves, why would you?  The things are practically disposable now.
1" sensor?  Big deal.  Shallow DOF has become wildly overrated and overused.
This camera was on my radar as I do a lot of doc work.  I have no doubt it would look fine the way I shoot.  Ultimately, I decided to go with the GX85 for numerous other reasons, (the fact that I have loads of M43 glass and I need two of 'em)
The other main reason being that the GX85 looks like a simple stills camera and doesn't intimidate anyone or call attention to itself by looking like a professional piece of gear.  That's a huge "feature" for what I need to do.  That need I take very seriously.  And in my mind it offers a HUGE advantage over "pro" gear.  How would you put that on a spec sheet??
Quite simply, if the XC10 solves an important production problem, no doubt I'd buy it.  Certainly others are doing so.

FWIW, the basic technique of match-cutting has certainly been part of the craft from the earliest days of montage editing.  Now, since the tempo of modern editing is so frantic and kinetic I'd call this evolution of the style "hyper-match-cut" as it's over and above even the fast paced stuff we're used to in more "standard" edits.
Also, the craft to aggressively accentuate the blend of movement is obviously such a huge priority it becomes the prominent aesthetic and the entire justification of the video.
Cool, to be sure.  Enjoyable in short doses as it's style above substance and fun to look at.  Perfect for impressionistic travel films.  
How well does it work for fictional narrative though?  I suppose it depends.  
Alright, so this is going to be a bit of a tangent, but I must say since this thread has me thinking about it, after watching "Jason Bourne" last night, I felt that the fast cut style was pushed beyond my tolerance.  Your mileage may differ, but for me it became unnecessary distraction rather than an effective technique.  
However, it was interesting to note how incredibly short the editor/director was willing to make a shot and still attempt to maintain narrative cohesion.  The answer, as much as I could tell, was about a 4th of a second.  For me, it was like this:  visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a knife falling to the ground, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, he landed a punch there, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, okay I see a gun, visual mess, visual mess, visual mess, his wound is a liability, etc., etc.  --And all that happens in about 2 seconds.  
I'm actually not being dismissively critical of the "mess" part, (flying elbows, CU's of motion blurred faces) because I realize it's designed (or tolerated?) to be a sort of impressionistic din and then the incredibly short but important visual clues let the viewer connect to the unfolding sequence. I'm just fascinated by deconstructing the technique and the limits they were willing to push.
So, it works for me when it's short and highly stylized as in these travel videos, but kinda annoying when looking at it for extended action sequences.

Yes.  Seems like you have a handle on things.  
When it comes to small productions, unless you have a good reason (story) to actually use a camera and film something interesting I really don't see a reason to put the cart before the horse.  When you're finally really excited about what's on the page, then take time to worry about the tech.
If your film was on a budget wherein you were the DP and your main concern was the camera, then you could burrow into the rabbit hole.  Otherwise, just get what you can with that 8K and you'll be fine.  
Personally, I sometimes wonder if too many production people feel like the subjective issue of skin tone/color is something that'll make or break a movie.  I mean, I care about it too, but it's waaaaay down on the priority list.  That's me though.  I tend to do work wherein I'm the beginning and end of everything, so my priorities need to take into account much more than just camera... The first one being, would a viewer even find this story interesting?

Yes.  Seems like you have a handle on things.  
When it comes to small productions, unless you have a good reason (story) to actually use a camera and film something interesting I really don't see a reason to put the cart before the horse.  When you're finally really excited about what's on the page, then take time to worry about the tech.
If your film was on a budget wherein you were the DP and your main concern was the camera, then you could burrow into the rabbit hole.  Otherwise, just get what you can with that 8K and you'll be fine.  
Personally, I sometimes wonder if too many production people feel like the subjective issue of skin tone/color is something that'll make or break a movie.  I mean, I care about it too, but it's waaaaay down on the priority list.  That's me though.  I tend to do work wherein I'm the beginning and end of everything, so my priorities need to take into account much more than just camera... The first one being, would a viewer even find this story interesting?

Yes.  Seems like you have a handle on things.  
When it comes to small productions, unless you have a good reason (story) to actually use a camera and film something interesting I really don't see a reason to put the cart before the horse.  When you're finally really excited about what's on the page, then take time to worry about the tech.
If your film was on a budget wherein you were the DP and your main concern was the camera, then you could burrow into the rabbit hole.  Otherwise, just get what you can with that 8K and you'll be fine.  
Personally, I sometimes wonder if too many production people feel like the subjective issue of skin tone/color is something that'll make or break a movie.  I mean, I care about it too, but it's waaaaay down on the priority list.  That's me though.  I tend to do work wherein I'm the beginning and end of everything, so my priorities need to take into account much more than just camera... The first one being, would a viewer even find this story interesting?

Here are some old examples from me.  I wouldn't say this is the same style as the video we're talking about.  However, there are sound editing techniques in a simple sports PR series I did in 2013 that are kinda-sorta similar.  It's not a complex technique, just a little time consuming.  And building a nice unexpected but motivated soundscape in an edit always takes it up a notch.
Sound is always good to concentrate on.
Basically, just getting in there with curious elements can create a nice context to an edit.
 
 
 
 
 

If all you're trying to do is add eye/face fill during daytime shooting, want it to be easy to use, and are shooting with a shorter lens so the camera is close to your subject, wouldn't a dim-able ring light be an option to consider?

And things roll on.
As you know, I'm a Oly fan for the ergos. 
Rumors are floating that their next model is definitely 4K. 
Pretty great.  It's still amazing to me how these consumer still cameras have become so awesome for motion pictures. 

I like the 20mm lens.  Small and unobtrusive, as you say.
Video looks good.
Er, lots of depressing rubbish/trash though at that event...

Having a decent script is awesome. It's always a challenge to make a great movie, regardless of a strong written foundation.  Hope you can pull it off!
Regarding Vimeo: my wife and I made a very very modest documentary that we put on Vimeo, and we see a trickle of income from it.  We've never bothered to promote it, but it's a topic that has a niche so orders keep floating in.  If you hook into a supporting community, they will prop you up a little bit, which is certainly nice.
If you think your film is good enough for the upper echelon film festivals, then yeah, give it a shot.  
As an active member of a small SoCal film fest I can tell you, we're desperate for films with a creative POV, from filmmakers that have an actual voice.  There's plenty of decently crafted films that we see, (because of the democratization of production gear) but not a heck of a lot that are truly accomplished with compelling and creative cinematic storytelling.  
I'll be completely honest here (so don't tell anyone I wrote this)  --it's personally a bit frustrating to screen some of the films we screen.  But ultimately that's cool.  That's all part of it.  My tastes in film doesn't exactly jibe with the rest of our selection committee's POV.  To put it diplomatically: We're "diverse."  To state it realistically: We put average films in the festival.
1. because we need the programming. 
2. particular topics, rather than cinematic creativity, will appeal to our selection committee.  (This is not necessarily a bad thing, I'm just acknowledging a typical situation of film fests)
As it happens, almost all good films that get submitted to our festival will get into our festival. (there's some ideological politics involved as well that go into the submission decisions --that's the nature of a committee)  But, be that as it may, we're a film festival that's incredibly embraced by our community.  Every single screening during our 5 day festival sees attendance of 150-200 people...and this is in a proper theatre venue that officially seats 185.
So, if you ever get accepted to film festival be wise and do your research regarding what sort of event they present. 
It's a bit much to travel across the nation to attend, go to your screening, and then it's you the filmmaker and only 4 other people in a sunlit conference room with a LCD projector... Experience that firsthand and you'll get a rude awakening of the sad state of some so-called film "festivals" these days.  This doesn't even take into account the festivals that exist solely to generate submission income and then dole out laurels and empty awards, while never even holding physical screenings.  
Our festival may be small, but at least it's legit.
At any rate, PM if you're interested.  I'd like to hear what you got going.  Also:  Good luck in general!

iZotope Rx.

Bubbie!  Where's the white knight in this mess?  

Bubbie!  Where's the white knight in this mess?  

I thought I did read in a recent post that Zach was banned, but I sort of thought it was an off-handed joke, not really the truth. 
Truly, his worst sin, if you even want to call it that, was that he was wildly naive and earnest; dash in a heap of ignorance.  Quite honestly, after three dozen pages of this thread I think we all deserve some of his sort of youthful alt-reality.  I'd welcome some of those types of halcyon days at this stage of my life, believe me.
The wonderful insane messiness of all this stew we read here is why this site is actually interesting.  Banning Zach seems like a bit of a take-away from that vibe.  You don't get this sort of juice from sanitized corporate curated websites.

Having a decent script is awesome. It's always a challenge to make a great movie, regardless of a strong written foundation.  Hope you can pull it off!
Regarding Vimeo: my wife and I made a very very modest documentary that we put on Vimeo, and we see a trickle of income from it.  We've never bothered to promote it, but it's a topic that has a niche so orders keep floating in.  If you hook into a supporting community, they will prop you up a little bit, which is certainly nice.
If you think your film is good enough for the upper echelon film festivals, then yeah, give it a shot.  
As an active member of a small SoCal film fest I can tell you, we're desperate for films with a creative POV, from filmmakers that have an actual voice.  There's plenty of decently crafted films that we see, (because of the democratization of production gear) but not a heck of a lot that are truly accomplished with compelling and creative cinematic storytelling.  
I'll be completely honest here (so don't tell anyone I wrote this)  --it's personally a bit frustrating to screen some of the films we screen.  But ultimately that's cool.  That's all part of it.  My tastes in film doesn't exactly jibe with the rest of our selection committee's POV.  To put it diplomatically: We're "diverse."  To state it realistically: We put average films in the festival.
1. because we need the programming. 
2. particular topics, rather than cinematic creativity, will appeal to our selection committee.  (This is not necessarily a bad thing, I'm just acknowledging a typical situation of film fests)
As it happens, almost all good films that get submitted to our festival will get into our festival. (there's some ideological politics involved as well that go into the submission decisions --that's the nature of a committee)  But, be that as it may, we're a film festival that's incredibly embraced by our community.  Every single screening during our 5 day festival sees attendance of 150-200 people...and this is in a proper theatre venue that officially seats 185.
So, if you ever get accepted to film festival be wise and do your research regarding what sort of event they present. 
It's a bit much to travel across the nation to attend, go to your screening, and then it's you the filmmaker and only 4 other people in a sunlit conference room with a LCD projector... Experience that firsthand and you'll get a rude awakening of the sad state of some so-called film "festivals" these days.  This doesn't even take into account the festivals that exist solely to generate submission income and then dole out laurels and empty awards, while never even holding physical screenings.  
Our festival may be small, but at least it's legit.
At any rate, PM if you're interested.  I'd like to hear what you got going.  Also:  Good luck in general!

I thought I did read in a recent post that Zach was banned, but I sort of thought it was an off-handed joke, not really the truth. 
Truly, his worst sin, if you even want to call it that, was that he was wildly naive and earnest; dash in a heap of ignorance.  Quite honestly, after three dozen pages of this thread I think we all deserve some of his sort of youthful alt-reality.  I'd welcome some of those types of halcyon days at this stage of my life, believe me.
The wonderful insane messiness of all this stew we read here is why this site is actually interesting.  Banning Zach seems like a bit of a take-away from that vibe.  You don't get this sort of juice from sanitized corporate curated websites.

So...anyone use a camera lately to film something?  Anything?

Is it possible for the radiation of a old lens to resurrect a zombie thread?

Is it possible for the radiation of a old lens to resurrect a zombie thread?

Is it possible for the radiation of a old lens to resurrect a zombie thread?