fuzzynormal

Yup.  It's freaking ridiculous too.  This is the main reason I put up with the other video limitations of the OLY cameras.  The 5 axis feature trumps pixel peeping...if you're actually using the camera to shoot stuff other than a test chart.

Yup.  It's freaking ridiculous too.  This is the main reason I put up with the other video limitations of the OLY cameras.  The 5 axis feature trumps pixel peeping...if you're actually using the camera to shoot stuff other than a test chart.

...And fully metal.  For what it's worth, the smaller M43 bodies are more... I don't know... how about: reassuring.  When they have the hefty older glass on them that's my sensation anyway.
 
Maybe it's legacy of muscle memory from my younger days.  My GX7 with an old Nikkon 24mm on it feels a lot more "real."
 
Also, I shoot FD glass from time to time with a colleague's FS700 and they're always tack sharp and clean across the frame.

Seeing curated stuff from someone else's POV is appreciated by me. I think that would work in a sticky thread.

Based on what I've seen with that corporation, I'm curious if they actually do want to live.  I get the impression that the investors that are still left mostly just value the brand and not the actual physical company, products, and employees.
 
It seems to me they're trying to tread water with lead shoes.  They really can't manage to go anywhere, best they can do is to keep from drowning.
 
When a couple of kids can release a digital camera that rivals your own design and development, (DBolex) you know you got issues.

That's uninterrupted recording, btw. I have a handful of 3rd party batteries that only do about 1/2 the juice of the OEM. Of course the 3rd party bats are a lot cheaper.

Last week I used it as a b cam on a shoot and just let it run using the OEM bat... Ran for just over 60 minutes. 30p 1080.

Last week I used it as a b cam on a shoot and just let it run using the OEM bat... Ran for just over 60 minutes. 30p 1080.

IMHO, Any of them are fine and you'll be able to do what you want to do.  Those that worry endlessly about the tech are missing their chance to just get out the damn door and go shoot something creative and compelling; making work that demands to be reckoned with.
 
Now, it's understood that lots of people just love having new gear and seeing how perfect they can make their footage.  That's why I've looked at seemingly endless shots of London, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, and L.A. over the past few years.
 
And even though I love playing with new toys, I'm of the mind that trying to perfect one's storytelling rather than the image is far and away a much more important endeavor.  Nothing trumps skill and ability.  I like to craft the narrative more than the image...even though I like to get the best image possible as well.
 
Nowadays, I just pick the gear that fits the project.  RAW in a film shoot production is slow but viable and sometimes worth the hassle.  For docs, I'd shoot compressed and utilize the easy storage.  
 
But it's all just options, y'know?
 
Doing a doc in low-light?  Consider the Sony.  Making a real estate video?  How about the GH4?  Shooting a short film on a shoe string?  That BMPC sure would help...  Gotta fly a cam or stick it on a kayak?  Go-Pro.  Can only do handheld and you need steady shots?  How about that Oly OM-D? etc.
 
Ultimately, if you got talent you can make a great film with an iPhone.

Indeed.  I just finished a production for a client who entertained the notion that his quad flying shots were appropriate for his film.  It was incredibly difficult to diplomatically try to inform him how to fly his toy.
 
Ultimately, he just liked to fly the damn thing high to the point where the landscape basically looked nondescript/static and then he would just pan and tilt the camera around randomly.  Augh.  
 
Some people would rather hang a painting of Kincaid in the house than a Wyeth.
 
I just had to accept it.  Lots of folks just don't get it.  Their subjectivity skews toward tacky.  With flying shots it's typically low, slow, and in a straight line.  It's really that simple.

Indeed.  I just finished a production for a client who entertained the notion that his quad flying shots were appropriate for his film.  It was incredibly difficult to diplomatically try to inform him how to fly his toy.
 
Ultimately, he just liked to fly the damn thing high to the point where the landscape basically looked nondescript/static and then he would just pan and tilt the camera around randomly.  Augh.  
 
Some people would rather hang a painting of Kincaid in the house than a Wyeth.
 
I just had to accept it.  Lots of folks just don't get it.  Their subjectivity skews toward tacky.  With flying shots it's typically low, slow, and in a straight line.  It's really that simple.

Indeed.  I just finished a production for a client who entertained the notion that his quad flying shots were appropriate for his film.  It was incredibly difficult to diplomatically try to inform him how to fly his toy.
 
Ultimately, he just liked to fly the damn thing high to the point where the landscape basically looked nondescript/static and then he would just pan and tilt the camera around randomly.  Augh.  
 
Some people would rather hang a painting of Kincaid in the house than a Wyeth.
 
I just had to accept it.  Lots of folks just don't get it.  Their subjectivity skews toward tacky.  With flying shots it's typically low, slow, and in a straight line.  It's really that simple.

Indeed.  I just finished a production for a client who entertained the notion that his quad flying shots were appropriate for his film.  It was incredibly difficult to diplomatically try to inform him how to fly his toy.
 
Ultimately, he just liked to fly the damn thing high to the point where the landscape basically looked nondescript/static and then he would just pan and tilt the camera around randomly.  Augh.  
 
Some people would rather hang a painting of Kincaid in the house than a Wyeth.
 
I just had to accept it.  Lots of folks just don't get it.  Their subjectivity skews toward tacky.  With flying shots it's typically low, slow, and in a straight line.  It's really that simple.

Here's some broad generalizations, but it's how I see things:   My bottom line opinion is worry about the storytelling first, then fret about all the other junk.  The craft and gear will fall in line behind a great idea.  If you know the shots you want to create to tell a story, you can usually find a way to make even the cheapest camera/mic effectively capture it.      On the other hand, if you come at it from a mostly technical side don't expect compelling videos that will enchant a layperson viewer.   Walking around street shots of Berlin, London, or L.A. with a new camera is great for us here at this forum, or for people that are into gear-porn.  Heck I love to see what new tech offers too, but it's a snooze-fest for  a regular person that watches those types of videos. The technical side of the craft is fun, challenging, and exciting, but if you want to really be a filmmaker it's not what you put at the top of the priority list.   Real film makers aren't making movies for those of us that dig that stuff, they're telling stories to a much broader audience.   Try to build something like this:  http://tinyurl.com/kk23m4b   over building something like this:  http://tinyurl.com/kak87tc   ...and you'll be a step ahead of so many others in the low-end side of the biz that seems more concerned with buying things rather than making things.   Just about EVERYONE in the modern world can get access to gear that has the capability to make astounding images and tell great stories.  (They carry it around in their pocket and call it a smartphone)  I'd argue that the majority of people with this new affordable gear don't make great stories with astounding images.  So you really got to ask yourself ...which one of those people do you want to be?   I'm making a short right now with a used $200 GH1 and a $20 prime lens.  The image is ridiculously good.  I mean...it's nuts what I'm getting for less than $250.  Which is cool.  Great.  I'm not worried about the image.  I trust what I can get based on the quality of the gear and the skills I've acquired.  At this point what I worry about is the story I'm trying to tell.  Is what I have my characters doing interesting to the viewer?  Do my frame compositions covey the proper emotion that helps support my story?   Having a Sony lowlight camera or Panasonic 4K doesn't mean squat if you don't do anything interesting with that capability.   My advice about gear and kit:  Don't worry about your gear and kit.  Get what works well enough and then use it.  That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.

Here's some broad generalizations, but it's how I see things:   My bottom line opinion is worry about the storytelling first, then fret about all the other junk.  The craft and gear will fall in line behind a great idea.  If you know the shots you want to create to tell a story, you can usually find a way to make even the cheapest camera/mic effectively capture it.      On the other hand, if you come at it from a mostly technical side don't expect compelling videos that will enchant a layperson viewer.   Walking around street shots of Berlin, London, or L.A. with a new camera is great for us here at this forum, or for people that are into gear-porn.  Heck I love to see what new tech offers too, but it's a snooze-fest for  a regular person that watches those types of videos. The technical side of the craft is fun, challenging, and exciting, but if you want to really be a filmmaker it's not what you put at the top of the priority list.   Real film makers aren't making movies for those of us that dig that stuff, they're telling stories to a much broader audience.   Try to build something like this:  http://tinyurl.com/kk23m4b   over building something like this:  http://tinyurl.com/kak87tc   ...and you'll be a step ahead of so many others in the low-end side of the biz that seems more concerned with buying things rather than making things.   Just about EVERYONE in the modern world can get access to gear that has the capability to make astounding images and tell great stories.  (They carry it around in their pocket and call it a smartphone)  I'd argue that the majority of people with this new affordable gear don't make great stories with astounding images.  So you really got to ask yourself ...which one of those people do you want to be?   I'm making a short right now with a used $200 GH1 and a $20 prime lens.  The image is ridiculously good.  I mean...it's nuts what I'm getting for less than $250.  Which is cool.  Great.  I'm not worried about the image.  I trust what I can get based on the quality of the gear and the skills I've acquired.  At this point what I worry about is the story I'm trying to tell.  Is what I have my characters doing interesting to the viewer?  Do my frame compositions covey the proper emotion that helps support my story?   Having a Sony lowlight camera or Panasonic 4K doesn't mean squat if you don't do anything interesting with that capability.   My advice about gear and kit:  Don't worry about your gear and kit.  Get what works well enough and then use it.  That's my rant and I'm sticking to it.

Interpret the almighty emoticon.

I'm personally thrilled at what's happening in the consumer level marketplace with imaging.  Many of us have been waiting for this to happen for about 20 years and it's more than arrived.
 
I've paid more for handle grips on old video cam-corders than I would for an entire camera body these days.

I'm personally thrilled at what's happening in the consumer level marketplace with imaging.  Many of us have been waiting for this to happen for about 20 years and it's more than arrived.
 
I've paid more for handle grips on old video cam-corders than I would for an entire camera body these days.

After reading and watching the PR material I think the marketing director has "Dreamer Eyes."
 
"This one's for you Nana!"
 
Seriously, check out the D810promo. So many odd beats in the thing.  It's a good illustration of how making cinematic narrative is REALLY hard --and it's not the gear or the budget that allow it to succeed.

Ha ha.  As if Americans have any monopoly on unethical business practices!  
 
Welcome to human nature, where people exploit other people.  There are no boundaries in this regard.
 
And, point of fact, Americans barely even rule themselves much less the world.

Heck of a rant, but I'll agree with it.  
 
The tech to realize cinematic art is cheap and easy now.  Almost anything you can buy can render a great image if you know the craft of it all.  However, when one is overly involved with worrying about the tech, they're missing opportunities to be artistic.
 
Being artistic is hard though.  Buying cool camera stuff is easy. 

Didn't see that show. Could be deconstructivistic intention.
 
Generally, if someone is on the extreme left, looking to the right, he sees 'into the future'. Accordingly, if he sits on the right side and looks left (into an empty frame), he thinks about 'the past'.
 
In WW2, german newsreel cameramen had the order from the ministry of propaganda, that tanks and troops had always to move from left to right, when they were meant to conquer Russia. And from right to left for France ...
 
There is something arbitrary about the rule that one needs to be able to follow. We follow where the master leads us?
 
Life is chaotic, important moments are fragments, thoughts jump and mix with impulses from outside. An excuse for Nolan? Does he need excuses? Go, recut the sequence so it becomes comprehensible, will it make any more sense then or become 'better'? 
 
Decades ago someone wrote a rant about Back To The Future. How the episodes didn't fit if you tried and recut them in chronological order. I was more shocked than when I learned there was no Santa Claus.

Right, it's not an all-sum proposition, which is how most inter web discussions seem to go.  Finding legitimate flaws in the production doesn't mean that an actual movie isn't worthwhile on other levels.
 
If you're not a discriminating viewer of movies, fine.  But if you want to be something of a film maker you should at least try to be so.  Knowing why Kurosawa is superior to a contemporary studio guy like Bay matters.  As an aspiring film maker of any legitimate level you gotta try to know why, understand why, and appreciate why.
 
This particular BatMan movie production was a beast of logistics and it does look like some chaos and unwieldiness of the production ended up on screen.
 
Or maybe it's just me...  Establishing the "geography" of a scene and allowing for coherent action is out of favor these days with a-list films.  Bombast trumps cohesion.  I'll take a 3 minute single pan wide shot of 2,000 extras and horses ransacking Aqaba in real time rather than 300 .5 second edits with 2 dozen explosions.   

tell the guy who made this video to send it to nolans producers...im sure they will fire him at once!how dare he break the continuity rules of editing!
 
below the batman franchise in dollars...
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Batman

It is. I do this often.