fuzzynormal

It's like the infamous explanation of pornography from a 20th century U.S. Supreme Court Judge, "(It's) hard to define, but I know it when I see it."
 
When it comes to good cinematography, I say it's an overall quality that is a sum of all it's parts.  It doesn't have to have DOF or great lighting, but if it artistically defines and supports the story, then it's happening.

If you want to portray a character struggling to move forward, trapped, not making progress, stressed that they're not going to get where they need to be in time, etc.  ...even though he/she is moving toward the lens, a long lens shot is a good way to show that metaphorically.
 
"The Graduate" comes to mind.  The character runs toward the lens but never seems to get closer.
 
Of course, this cinematic trope is used as a joke in "The Holy Grail."

Look nice. But looks too complicated at first. May be I'll get used later.
White text on black is definitely bad. I hate reading DPreview articles because of this. 

Which one is it?  A7s?  GH4?  Nikon?  Canon?  Canikon?  What?
 
Oh, you mean it's not the gear that makes compelling motion pictures, it's artistic skill...?  Oh well, I guess I'll just go look at some DxO sensor charts then instead of looking at this:
 

 
So, yeah, I'm being snarky, but the point is this:  just about everyone has access to viable imaging capabilities now.  The 13 year old girl with a new smartphone has more impressive technology in her hand than most pros did 10 years ago.  The more we worry about specs, the less relevant we become as actual filmmakers.
 
I mean, I kind of wish my profession was a bit more insulated from everyone as a competitor, but the other hand, dang, affordable technology sure is fun!
 
Anyway, my rant stems from standing behind a so-called-pro at the airport yesterday.  He was claiming to a colleague that anything done on a camera lesser than a RED Epic was "amateur hour."  Seems like a ridiculous philosophy to me, but what do I know?  I'm not doing high-end stuff, just making a living on the fringes.  Maybe he's right?

Of course nice cameras make superior pictures. The thing I'm considering is this: everyone has access to decent camera tech and it's only getting better and cheaper.

The more I worry about gear the less time I'm trying to make my skills as an actual filmmaker improve. More and more talented people have access to filmmaking that would have been limited in the past.. Out spending or out buying them when it comes to the gear isn't much of an advantage.

Being able to realize creative filmmaking ideas and solutions seems like a better focus of effort... and I used to love being the techy guy, but I really feel like it's time to let all that go.

Which one is it?  A7s?  GH4?  Nikon?  Canon?  Canikon?  What?
 
Oh, you mean it's not the gear that makes compelling motion pictures, it's artistic skill...?  Oh well, I guess I'll just go look at some DxO sensor charts then instead of looking at this:
 

 
So, yeah, I'm being snarky, but the point is this:  just about everyone has access to viable imaging capabilities now.  The 13 year old girl with a new smartphone has more impressive technology in her hand than most pros did 10 years ago.  The more we worry about specs, the less relevant we become as actual filmmakers.
 
I mean, I kind of wish my profession was a bit more insulated from everyone as a competitor, but the other hand, dang, affordable technology sure is fun!
 
Anyway, my rant stems from standing behind a so-called-pro at the airport yesterday.  He was claiming to a colleague that anything done on a camera lesser than a RED Epic was "amateur hour."  Seems like a ridiculous philosophy to me, but what do I know?  I'm not doing high-end stuff, just making a living on the fringes.  Maybe he's right?

Well, it's not really impossible.  Honest.  You MUST control the lens, however.  It doesn't erase bad camera work.
 
I can testify that it is possible to shoot the "Roma" sort of video handheld with the OLY 5-axis feature.  The main reason the Rome video works:  You'll notice that the editing never shows a shot come to rest after a floating move.  
 
Those are the moments when the stabilizer will create the visual artifacts of it's use that you've asked about.  If those instances were left in the edit, it wouldn't look as impressive.
 
For instance, if you handheld pan to the left and then stop on a subject, the stabilizer system doesn't resolve this motion in a natural way.  It looks mechanical as the movement ends and the frame image comes to rest.
 
But, in the Rome video, the editor just cuts away during continuous moves, so no worries.  If you plan to shoot and edit in a similar way, you can create such a video quite easily and completely hand held.
 
I mean, I've been doing cool mini slider shots myself by leaning around corners/foreground elements and shifting my body around.  I swear camera operation with the OM-D is practically like doing Tai Chi while pointing a camera at something.  That's really the best way to explain it and it does work.
 
Also note that in the Rome video the footage was conformed from 30fps to 24fps, creating a gentle slow-mo effect that also smooths things out a bit.
 
Anyway, I spent about 20 minutes on a small boat floating around Sunda Kelapa harbor yesterday with my OM-D and the stuff looks like it could have been shot on the world's longest dolly track.  For the right kind of shots, it really is that good.
 
You have to be smooth though to begin with!  Accomplished camera work is still needed.  You can't just fling the lens around and expect good results.  The Dixieland video above is not that impressive to me because of this undisciplined shooting.  Smart considered control is a must.
 
Caveat:  Pushing the focal length above 60-ish-mm (Full Frame Equivalent) and emulating dolly moves gets a lot tricker than stuff shot with shorter focal lengths.
 
I will say that I can see myself using this camera WITH a glide-cam type of rig to accomplish incredibly controlled, elegant, and longer moving shots.  It would closely rival the best Steady-Cam shots from the most skilled practitioners.  The combo would be very complimentary.  While I can do glide-cam stuff decent enough, I'm not a pro at it.  The 5-axis would hide those slight flaws I'd otherwise create.
 
Now, if OLY is able to up it's specs with firmware or a new model with new/better tech, then it's really going to tempt traditional users away from their usual brands, I think.  Not sure how long they'll have the 5-axis advantage, and if other manufacturers can eventually match it, but for me right now, today, it's serving a very pragmatic purpose.  It fits the way I need to shoot for my stuff.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Sure. I'm using it consistently here in Jakarta; about 20% of the time.

I'm on the road for awhile with only my iPhone, so I can't post examples of the video I'm shooting, but I can say that it's liberating to be able to pull static shots that look like they're done with a tripod.

Emulating slider shots is viable by drifting the body tai-chi style.

The OMD is quirky in that it's video functions, control, and IQ are not top class, and controlling the camera isn't as easy as canon or Panasonic, but the image quality results ARE decent, and the 5-axis for shooting run and gun style is really a blessing.

I've also found that I can do great steady cam style shots by carrying the camera attached to the tripod and my arm outstretched. With the extra mass of the tripod smoothing out the up and down steps as I move forward, it creates a very elegant motion.

I'm limiting what I do to linear shots of motion. Straight line type of stuff. More elaborate or faster pans with tilts do create drift as the lens "lands" at the end of a move. Then again, if you plan on editing without the shot hitting a solid static on the end move, then you're free to drift and twist as much as you please.

The 5-axis isn't a panacea for shoddy camera control, but it's a heck if a tool if you properly utilize it.

Why would a camera manufacturer spend time (money) adding more "power" to an older camera that does nothing to pay their bills?  Why do people believe manufacturers limit or turn off features?  Why would Olympus, which has no video line, throttle back a camera to stop it from competing with their non-existent video cameras?  To me, EOSHD has improved immensely from last year by staying away from this type of (naive to me) conspiracy thinking.  Wake up camera people :)  In a very difficult camera market ALL manufacturers are looking to put in as many features as they can to compete against smart-phones.  A win for any of them is a win for all.  Panasonic didn't come out with 4K out of the blue.  They have been working on this technology for years.  As for Magic Lantern, when the 50D came out there weren't CF cards fast enough to write RAW video.  Anyway, RAW is STILL not for consumers, for a long list of reasons.  I want built-in Canon RAW as much as the next guy, but I don't believe it's as easy a decision as it looks (overheating issues for one).
 
Sadly, people may leave EOSHD because Andrew isn't feeding into this fantasy of picking up a used E-M1 for $300 and turning on 4K video.  They will follow people who feed into the dream, rather than the reality.  This is true in all areas of expertise (why there are so many charlatans).  DON'T FALL FOR IT ;)  

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.

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.