fuzzynormal

It's a new era if Vimeo fails to compete.  It's a tough market.  I hope they succeed as, from what I can tell, their VOD streaming service is fair to indy filmmakers...but the tech needs to keep up.
The fact that a VOD film I have on the site doesn't pop up when doing a search of my production company name is maddening.
If anyone knows another VOD service that has a better revenue sharing scheme with equal streaming quality, please inform!

It's a new era if Vimeo fails to compete.  It's a tough market.  I hope they succeed as, from what I can tell, their VOD streaming service is fair to indy filmmakers...but the tech needs to keep up.
The fact that a VOD film I have on the site doesn't pop up when doing a search of my production company name is maddening.
If anyone knows another VOD service that has a better revenue sharing scheme with equal streaming quality, please inform!

I currently shoot a lot of video on a EM5II, and the XPro2 has better IQ.  So it's certainly capable of making pretty images.  I'd say it all depends on how often you want to shoot video, what you want the results to look like, and how much you prioritize the video experience over stills.
I'm still getting used to making the XPro2 work smoothly as a video cam.  Like all "hybrid" photography cams that do video, it's got quirks so I need to get used to them.  Seems like it'll be easy enough to do though.  I mean, I shoot video with the GM1.  If that's possible, then the XPro2 won't be any issue.
As a photography camera, I think it's the best thing Fuji has on the market right now.  The old school knob control is perfection, IMHO.  So much better than the X100's.  Everything is much more refined than the X100's too.  There's nothing on the X100's that the XPro2 doesn't do better.

Wow.  Ed O'Neil is playing guitar in a Raleigh North Carolina bar band?
Seriously though, good capabilities.  I'd stop that 1.2 down a touch though.  It's actually kind of amusing to see "night" shots a bit over exposed.  Technology these days is impressive.

Be sure to check out http://f16.click Kevin Mullins' blog for more insight about the Xpro2 if you're interested.

Not sure where using a Xpro2 will take me when it comes to video, but like most cams these days it has certain strengths, for sure.
 

Not sure where using a Xpro2 will take me when it comes to video, but like most cams these days it has certain strengths, for sure.
 

Indeed.  It's one of the fascinating things to me regarding US politics insomuch as the pro biz party also has in its corner the evangelical religious folks, who you'd think would be pretty clear headed about the morality of things.  Then again, maybe they're not really that concerned with a philosophical morality, only how they perceive their own.  
Anyway, I'm on record as saying I don't think capitalism makes it out of the 21st century.  That's not exactly great insight.  Many people smarter than me are on board with that assertion.  I mean, look, less than 100 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people on the planet.  I mean, I'm not against affluence, but hoarding wealth is just not healthy for a culture.  It is immoral.  Society is just going in the wrong direction; does;t mean we're doomed, just that we need to adjust.
Enterprising people and moneymakers will always be around, but the system and culture of modern capitalism is too reliant on gluttony and exploitation to survive the social and economic stresses of the future.  I suppose it could be argued that it's gone already, if it ever really existed in the first place.  How does one see an "invisible hand" anyway? ;-)  I doubt Adam Smith would even approve of the twisted version of his system as practiced today.
Unions are really the only effective way, right now, to push back against those that willingly exploit.  
And unions aren't needed everywhere.  I assert a business, any business, can be healthy and generous without maximizing profits at the expense of their employees.  Their are nobler goals to strive for.  

Heck,
There's no reason to look at tribal culture.  I have experience with my grandmother as an example.  She and I grew up next to each other as neighbors, so I know all about her history.  
She was born in 1920 and grew up on the family farm.  It was hard labor during certain times of the year, but the hard labor side of it wasn't that daunting or time consuming.  Most of that farm life was just, as it happened, life.  You know, feeding the chickens wasn't really work per se, it's just a chore and something you do as part of your existence.  With her, her mother, and her father farming was a certainly a job often, but it was on their own terms and certainly less than 40 hours of hard labor a week.
This was during the same time that Flint was upending the manufacturing model with the establishment of the UAW about 45 miles down the road.  So, there's context to all of this.  It's not like these guys working in the factory didn't understand what their physical limits were.  Yes, we can certainly put in a lot of hours of work in a week, but parts of American culture used to know how to balance it and what was reasonable.
I don't know if something like the UAW would have happened if car manufacturing set itself up on the east coast --which had been exploiting workers quite harshly since the dawn of the industrial age and where urban life was actually a lot more demanding and competitive.
The agrarian legacy of labor expectations lasted well into the American 20th, 21st century. 
Anyway, you can also look the lives of USA farmers in the 18th and 19th century as well.  Assuming they avoided disease and dramatic injury, the quality of life was actually pretty good.  Lots of recreational time while waiting for things to happen seasonally.  It was actually normal to go to bed early, wake up in the middle of the night, spent some hours just relaxing or socializing, then going back to bed 'til dawn.  Sort of a reverse siesta.
Farmers in the States (and most USA citizens used to be farmers) played by their own rules as they decided how and when to do what they needed to do.  2/3rds of our social history was a result that rugged individualism, so if you've ever been curious why Americans culture is the way it is, there's a clue... I'd say Americans and Aussies have a very common kinship... but I'm rambling now.  Time to get back to a corporate edit and suck on some irony.

Heck,
There's no reason to look at tribal culture.  I have experience with my grandmother as an example.  She and I grew up next to each other as neighbors, so I know all about her history.  
She was born in 1920 and grew up on the family farm.  It was hard labor during certain times of the year, but the hard labor side of it wasn't that daunting or time consuming.  Most of that farm life was just, as it happened, life.  You know, feeding the chickens wasn't really work per se, it's just a chore and something you do as part of your existence.  With her, her mother, and her father farming was a certainly a job often, but it was on their own terms and certainly less than 40 hours of hard labor a week.
This was during the same time that Flint was upending the manufacturing model with the establishment of the UAW about 45 miles down the road.  So, there's context to all of this.  It's not like these guys working in the factory didn't understand what their physical limits were.  Yes, we can certainly put in a lot of hours of work in a week, but parts of American culture used to know how to balance it and what was reasonable.
I don't know if something like the UAW would have happened if car manufacturing set itself up on the east coast --which had been exploiting workers quite harshly since the dawn of the industrial age and where urban life was actually a lot more demanding and competitive.
The agrarian legacy of labor expectations lasted well into the American 20th, 21st century. 
Anyway, you can also look the lives of USA farmers in the 18th and 19th century as well.  Assuming they avoided disease and dramatic injury, the quality of life was actually pretty good.  Lots of recreational time while waiting for things to happen seasonally.  It was actually normal to go to bed early, wake up in the middle of the night, spent some hours just relaxing or socializing, then going back to bed 'til dawn.  Sort of a reverse siesta.
Farmers in the States (and most USA citizens used to be farmers) played by their own rules as they decided how and when to do what they needed to do.  2/3rds of our social history was a result that rugged individualism, so if you've ever been curious why Americans culture is the way it is, there's a clue... I'd say Americans and Aussies have a very common kinship... but I'm rambling now.  Time to get back to a corporate edit and suck on some irony.

Indeed.  It's one of the fascinating things to me regarding US politics insomuch as the pro biz party also has in its corner the evangelical religious folks, who you'd think would be pretty clear headed about the morality of things.  Then again, maybe they're not really that concerned with a philosophical morality, only how they perceive their own.  
Anyway, I'm on record as saying I don't think capitalism makes it out of the 21st century.  That's not exactly great insight.  Many people smarter than me are on board with that assertion.  I mean, look, less than 100 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people on the planet.  I mean, I'm not against affluence, but hoarding wealth is just not healthy for a culture.  It is immoral.  Society is just going in the wrong direction; does;t mean we're doomed, just that we need to adjust.
Enterprising people and moneymakers will always be around, but the system and culture of modern capitalism is too reliant on gluttony and exploitation to survive the social and economic stresses of the future.  I suppose it could be argued that it's gone already, if it ever really existed in the first place.  How does one see an "invisible hand" anyway? ;-)  I doubt Adam Smith would even approve of the twisted version of his system as practiced today.
Unions are really the only effective way, right now, to push back against those that willingly exploit.  
And unions aren't needed everywhere.  I assert a business, any business, can be healthy and generous without maximizing profits at the expense of their employees.  Their are nobler goals to strive for.  

Indeed.  It's one of the fascinating things to me regarding US politics insomuch as the pro biz party also has in its corner the evangelical religious folks, who you'd think would be pretty clear headed about the morality of things.  Then again, maybe they're not really that concerned with a philosophical morality, only how they perceive their own.  
Anyway, I'm on record as saying I don't think capitalism makes it out of the 21st century.  That's not exactly great insight.  Many people smarter than me are on board with that assertion.  I mean, look, less than 100 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people on the planet.  I mean, I'm not against affluence, but hoarding wealth is just not healthy for a culture.  It is immoral.  Society is just going in the wrong direction; does;t mean we're doomed, just that we need to adjust.
Enterprising people and moneymakers will always be around, but the system and culture of modern capitalism is too reliant on gluttony and exploitation to survive the social and economic stresses of the future.  I suppose it could be argued that it's gone already, if it ever really existed in the first place.  How does one see an "invisible hand" anyway? ;-)  I doubt Adam Smith would even approve of the twisted version of his system as practiced today.
Unions are really the only effective way, right now, to push back against those that willingly exploit.  
And unions aren't needed everywhere.  I assert a business, any business, can be healthy and generous without maximizing profits at the expense of their employees.  Their are nobler goals to strive for.  

Indeed.  It's one of the fascinating things to me regarding US politics insomuch as the pro biz party also has in its corner the evangelical religious folks, who you'd think would be pretty clear headed about the morality of things.  Then again, maybe they're not really that concerned with a philosophical morality, only how they perceive their own.  
Anyway, I'm on record as saying I don't think capitalism makes it out of the 21st century.  That's not exactly great insight.  Many people smarter than me are on board with that assertion.  I mean, look, less than 100 people have more wealth than 3.5 billion people on the planet.  I mean, I'm not against affluence, but hoarding wealth is just not healthy for a culture.  It is immoral.  Society is just going in the wrong direction; does;t mean we're doomed, just that we need to adjust.
Enterprising people and moneymakers will always be around, but the system and culture of modern capitalism is too reliant on gluttony and exploitation to survive the social and economic stresses of the future.  I suppose it could be argued that it's gone already, if it ever really existed in the first place.  How does one see an "invisible hand" anyway? ;-)  I doubt Adam Smith would even approve of the twisted version of his system as practiced today.
Unions are really the only effective way, right now, to push back against those that willingly exploit.  
And unions aren't needed everywhere.  I assert a business, any business, can be healthy and generous without maximizing profits at the expense of their employees.  Their are nobler goals to strive for.  

Not to stray too far off topic, but I've never understood this. Currently 32 and have no problems remembering what is like to be 22, or even 12 for that matter. 
 

Well, let's also be honest.  The trailer isn't doing the movie any favors.  It's bad.  Mundane while being too revealing of plot.
Maybe Sony should've considered hiring out this guy's editing and storytelling skills:
 

It's just plain basic misogyny.  I don't know why anyone should be shocked by this sort of reaction.  The internet is run by 15 year olds.  15 years old, literally and figuratively.  Insecure dudes need a scapegoat for their sexual anxiety.
Also, they have a hard time relating to gals as regular complex human beings.  As such they don't want anything other than the simple objectified stereotypical woman in their pop culture.  Which, by the way, I think they view pop culture a little bit as their entitlement.  --And I would note that, in a sense, they deserve to feel this way as MOST successful pop culture and commercial marketing caters directly to them.
And they like that stuff segregated.  The ladies can have their own stuff, but their response is to relegate it to the dismissive Chick Flick category,  "Put it in the corner. There we go.  Okay, that feels better."  
When a well regarded pop culture franchise goes against the norm, they get bent out of shape, simply because they're not very sophisticated people.  Some of them might be some day, but at the moment many are not...might not ever be. 
I suppose it's good to try and push back against this ridiculousness, but it's like trying to push back the tide with a broom.  
So, dial up the SJW umbrage if you feel you must.  Be aware that most young guys are just stupid and confused.  Although, might as well try to get through to a few, I suppose.  Worse things to do.
All that said, hey, it might not be a great movie.  

I find this stuff fascinating:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/mermaid-stephen-chow-comedy-about-human-impact-earth-becomes-chinas-biggest-film-ever-1545558
As is pretty obvious, filmmaking is a global biz.  Sony and Disney are trying hard to figure it out.  Ultimately, I think that the system will continually fracture a bit. Smaller more niche stuff will thrive to fill the gap as studios continue to try and prop up their tent-pole franchises.  And, by necessity of having to strive for broad appeal, ignore the more artistic and narratively challenging side of cinema.
Those smaller/better ideas are migrating to prestige TV and the internet.  Which is perfectly fine for an aspiring-late-career-documentarian like me.  It's hopeful. 
In the meantime, that goofy Chinese flick is outperforming (per screen) Deadpool by double.

I shoot almost all my m43 stuff  @f2.  But, I do like my f1.2 lenses in case I need that extra brightness in a dark room.  It's good to have that ability even if it means some annoying CA and softness.  A f1.2 lens stopped down to f2 looks sharp.  I'm shooting old Canon FD, but I've used Nikon and Pentax with success as well.

I do run n gun a lot.  Not sure what your situation is, but I'm typically covering 1 subject.  As such, I put a wireless mic on him/her and then the receiver on my camera.  
Lately it's a EM5II with the battery grip adapter.  Good set up in that I can monitor the audio signal and the whole "rig" is small.  Also:  Simple.  No breakdown.  No set up.  No tripod.  I just carry my camera with me and shoot.
Shotguns are fine and all, but they need to be be near the subject to be effective.  Otherwise it's just an expensive mic that's not located properly for capturing clean audio.  If it's a necessity to go with a shotgun, (sometimes the situation demands it) I get an audio operator to boom pole it.  
For the most part I'll pick up group conversation audio well enough from the lav the subject is wearing.  On occasion I've run two wireless mics and I just let it record outboard and carry that pack in my camera satchel. 

Definitely go for it.  I still have a soft spot in my heart for the KY-27 I used early on in my career.  Fully competent piece of gear, but it didn't stop me from coveting the Sony stuff.

good night, brave troll.
and it's spelled "genius", genius.
The movie was distributed by paramount internationally. that included both those countries and whatever rock you just crawled back under.

around the time of the release of the movie, the total seeds for all the torrents i could find was just over 10,000. i don't know how high it got. The Turkish YouTube upload had just crossed 100,000 views when i discovered it (it had been up for more than a month). A torrent was also likely used to make bootleg Blu-rays that one of my actors found in Hong Kong.
ps - fuck you, you belittling asshole.
 

Certainly pros need to work in the specialized minutiae and hone their craft, but I do think it's a bit silly when a naive hobbyist with a t2i tries to shoot raw with expensive lenses, and then attempts to apply advanced LUT's to footage --when they can't even yet figure out how to point a light in a meaningful way, frame an interesting composition, or structure a story with any compelling cohesion.
I guess it's just easier to be technical than creative.
Well, I don't 'guess' in my case, anyway.  I know it is for a fact.
 

I do think the model will change (is changing), but let's not forget that Louis C.K. earned the luxury of being able to thrive on the vanguard of this new model simply because he established his credentials in the old model.
On the other hand, it's proven that mass media is possible with youtube.

Yeah, but how does it render skin tones?