Richard Bugg

More than any other, this one blog post helped me master professionalism and bokeh, and avoid legal pitfalls.
http://www.27bslash6.com/photography.html

Here is a pretty good blog post, which is similar in nature but broadens the discussion to include microphones, with a bias towards ambient recording (stereo) for those who are interested.

Sometimes I use my Sanken CS3e indoors when the conditions I'm given are truly TERRIBLE, such as in an active busy restaurant. Thus if the location was perfectly silent (HAHAHAHA!!), my Sanken CS3e wouldn't be the right choice, but because of the sheer background noise levels I use it anyway rather than a hypercardioid.

@TheRenaissanceMan My recommendation for a cheap shotgun is the 600. Buy with no fear at all, the value for money is incredible, there is also a softie kind of wind reduction accessory sold by Sennheiser for cheap. ME66 were my previous recommendation a decade ago, but right now, for most people I believe the 600 is just perfect.
The 440 is a very interesting microphone for camera people, is a stereo mic consisting with 2 shotgun mics. From a closer distance it can be all you need for a small group of people (2-3 people), or more directional scratch/atmosphere sound.
From whatever I have heard on the internet I wouldn't buy a Deity microphone, I would prefer a Rode, or a Sennheiser (I do buy Sennheiser mostly, but sadly, I am not a brand ambassador).
@squig If you don't mind size, the Rodes are excellent (and very cheap) wireless systems.
For videographers out there, the Sennheiser AVX is an amazing little (literally) wireless system, and if you buy the expensive version, comes with an amazing lavalier mic.
@Richard Bugg try to avoid a shotgun for indoors. Too much hassle later on and reflection issues would be a 70%-80% certainty. If you can't afford expensive, an Audix or an Oktava can be a better solution.
Here in Europe we are using the DR10 as safety recorders together with G3 wireless systems (they have an IN and OUT connection, so you record whatever comes from the G3, and then send the sound to the wireless receiver). Because of Zaxcom law suit, they had to remove this ability to US products. They are good as stand alone recorders, and some times if you wouldn't do anything in any way (let's say, in a wedding, usually you can't stop the ceremony just to fix the microphone), then it is an ok solution, and cheaper than any wireless system.

Sometimes a shotgun can sound ok indoors, but at their core shotgun exist to because they reject (to an extent) the sound coming in from the sides.

Think about a room with a lot of hard reflections, think about all that sound coming back as reflections and hitting the microphone, do you really want to be rejecting the actual sound you want to record??

I probably need to do a vBlog one day in a super bad room, showing side by side a shotgun vs hypercardioid. As I suppose if you've never ever tried it before, you might not notice it in isolation. 

I will always throw the Marantz PMD661 into threads like this. No question Zoom's has got the market cornered with their name and features. And I will say their pre-amps have gotten consistently better over time (I was down with Zoom for a minute. Had the original H4 and then the H4N), but they still don't have sh*t on the 661. 
Basically if audio quality is your priority then imho the Marantz PMD661 (Version 1 or 2) is a hugely slept on option (unless you need more than 2 XLR mics). I think it's mostly because it came out before the indie/DSLR revolution, but the PMD661 is still kind of the standard in the public radio broadcast world where audio quality is really all that matters (it's the standard recorder at the CBC in Canada, and I know This American Life and other PR shows swear by it).
Anyways, just my 2 cents but the PMD661 (for what you get in pre-amp quality, IN/OUT options and overall sound quality) is hugely slept on in the indie video world, and available used nowadays for $300 easy (just sold one of my units for that price). AND if you're lucky enough to get one of the OADE Mod'ed units, you're taking that thing to a whole other level.
https://www.oade.com/digital_recorders/hard_disc_recorders/PMD-661MODS.html
It's also bigger than a lot of the newer recorders out there, but realistically I don't see how it's size is really an issue beyond the optics of it being `bigger than' as opposed to it actually being big.

This bloke shows how he bought a mid-tier 2017 iMac, pulled the screen off then replaced the CPU with an Intel i7, added an SSD and 64GB RAM to apparently achieve faster performance than any other 2017 iMac. Perhaps this is the type of hybrid Hackintosh that makes most sense for the DIY handyman.

That's a mean looking rattlesnake.
Having a camera nearby at a time when the light was interesting was cool enough, but when I'd framed the shot and set the exposure, and a bloke happened to cruise by on a snazzy motorbike...well, what more could you ask for. It's a form of hunting, and it triggers a primal drive.

For the small time filmmakers, sometimes I feel like popularity is the only thing that matters. literally posting a lot about filming, and becoming a personality, is said by many to be very important, even just for submitting to a festival.. like it's not just about the quality of your film.
I feel really weird about advertising myself, especially to friends and family, and pretending I'm interesting
I'd rather slowly build up a following on vimeo by making films I'm proud of maybe.. which is obviously possible, but yeah.. do any of you do this? Thoughts?

Frankly at this point anything you read from the motivation guru industry on social marketing isn't worth much at all. Books on how to become "known" and the like. The authors know damn well that the way things worked for them won't work for you (technically they will, but nowhere near as well) which is why they're willing to tell you all they know for a $9.99 ebook. Also the internet is the great haven for survivorship bias as for every Andrew Kramer making huge money with the internet and social media there are tens of thousands doing the same things and seeing zip
So basically, if everyone else is instagramming their way to great gigs, then don't expect anywhere near their success starting from scratch. Learn to manipulate Google and Youtube because I'd bet 99 out of 100 filmmakers don't know jack shit about search engine optimization and you can sweep up a nice audience there (and then make real money selling "seo for filmmakers" books and seminars five years later)
Personally, you won't find me on any social media, because I don't have time to do it halfway, and unless you're willing to go all out (and become the aforementioned D list celeb instead of a filmmaker) your time is better off face to face networking and building referrals from that.
I've built a creative career with zero percent social media presence, 20% web presence, and 80% face to face presence 

The DSLR is dead. Long live the DSLR.

That's the thing though. Guys like Bannon ARE engineering an invasion. The current administration wants a Christian vs Muslim war and they see it as divine destiny to win it.
It's going to be your armed forces, men and women, who die in this, in far greater numbers than those who have been killed by "terrorist" wannabes, which are actually incidents of crime and murder, rather than acts of war and terrorism as the media and government portray it as.
For example what happened in Berlin recently, was extremely tragic but the act of ONE SINGLE petty criminal murderer. Just because they have certain beliefs doesn't make them an army.
No it doesn't make you white supremacists.
It does make you a fearful paranoid bunch, unable to take responsibility for why people hate you.
When these terrorist nutcases speak about defeating Christians, they're not talking about Canada and Sweden.
Trump is making you a target.
I can understand the US culture of gun ownership, it comes from protecting isolated farms and houses from a hostile lawless wild-west society.
Those days are over if only you'd let go Tom!
Fox News constantly spins this propaganda about Europe.
There are not a million refugees on my street in Berlin or piling into bars in Manchester.
It just didn't happen that way.
99% of the people who came over just politely blend in and just want to get on with their lives and bring up their children, then return to their homes once the fighting stops and the country of origin is ready to rebuild.
Some will settle but that again is nothing new to Europe or the UK. The UK in particular has been a melting pot of nationalities for centuries. It gave us our best food, our best music, our best doctors and scientists. If only we could replace our lazy fat British chavs with refugees who actually have a work ethic, the economy would be even better.
Merkel made a mistake by not controlling or keeping track of who came in but that's the price you pay for true freedom. Under Trump you're not actually free, you're not actually safe, sadly it's just an illusion. Trump and Bannon talk-up their Christian values all the time. Merkel did it as a good Christian deed and she did save millions of lives... I don't see Fox News praising her Christian values, or the fact she's an ex-quantum physicist whereas Trump has issues spelling the word 'tap' correctly.
Yes, a few of the refugees who came in abused the situation and took advantage. A few more happened to do that and at the same time harbour mental illness. A few crimes occurred, as they do every day with people born here and raised here. Every single crime has been blown up in the media and put under the spotlight, because it's a foreign perpetrator. The media is heavily biased and has an agenda to get more clicks and sell more newspapers. That's how propaganda works. Look it up.
It's fine to reject the globalist agenda
You'll be left behind though
Because it's a global world now, with the internet, out sourcing, mass production, consumerism and hugely beneficial trade links...
You may not like it but you can't buck the trend of world history just by stomping your feet like a child and voting for Trump.
It's not going to be rolled back long term over the next 200 years and next will come A.I., robots, and a whole other world order you can't do anything about...
Leave a good legacy for yourself and your family and work hard. Alternatively, be remembered as that sad guy who got caught up in the short-lived wave of hysteria and supported a joke-president who is an even smaller footnote in the history books.
Oh the irony.
You have a 20th century European-style tyrant as your president and I assume you voted for him.
So if anyone hasn't learnt from that it's you.
LOL. This is Info-wars level batshit crazy.
The global economy has pulled millions of people our of poverty and put food on their tables. Sony have camera factories in Thailand.
Those factory jobs are NOT coming back to the rustbelt in the US.
Manchester in the UK did not get the factory jobs back either.
We adapted and went with a services based economy which is why there's now the BBC's second HQ there and a ton of film production studios.
Who wants the miserable factory jobs back any way?
We do have one thing in common - we both dislike political correctness.
I'd like you even more if you were sane.

On going your own way Friedrich Nietzsche had this to say: "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."
And on differences, this: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.”
Once, on a long walk in the mountains, an elderly gentleman echoed the sentiment when he told me that "Everything is opinion", to which I opined, "That's your opinion". Now that I think of it, he was probably paraphrasing Nietzsche at the time.
Walk your own path. Who cares about the others.

For me its all about the lenses and the lighting , lens focal length choose for the scene and also they type of lenses you use gives the cinematic look I run 24p and as flat a color profile as I can , but the camera is not making it cinematic it's the lenses - using selective focus and depth of field to draw your eyes to the subject in the fame is standard cinematic style film making , just get any 4 back issues of American Cinematographer from the past five years read them and you will see a pattern emerging of lens choice and lighting that define the cinematic look and you will see its the  cinematographers craft that make it cinematic not the camera .

It's a difficult term to define but I tend to think of it as a lot of things done really well, in the narrative context that we're used to it. 
It's a miracle that a good movie exists when you think about it. So many things have to fire on all cylinders to at least a competent level. 
Writing and Acting are the obvious key factors
Then directing, blocking, cinematography
Sound, production design
Editing and color grading to bring it all together. Helps to have a nice soundtrack, too.

That's a lot of stuff that has to be done well. When I look at good movies vs amateur efforts on vimeo, the big ones that stick out are always acting, sound and production design. I find there's a decent amount of stuff that looks good in terms of camera technical quality and shot choice, but usually the "world" is lacking because the above 3 are off. The latter 2 are criminally underrated in my opinion. 
I love cameras and imagery, but I'm willing to admit that I genuinely think sound is more important. Yet even on big budget stuff, people report that it's considered an afterthought sometimes. 
I love gear and tech, so I don't want to fall into one of the "Who cares what you shot on, content is king!" guys. I really do like looking at charts, comparing resolution, dynamic range etc.. I love forums like this. Gear discussions are very enjoyable. 
Filmmaking, especially at our level, seems to mostly be a problem of limited resources, so the trick is figuring out what to prioritize. Hollywood (at least some movies) can just throw money at every department, but we cannot. There's a difference between a GH4, C300, Red Epic, Alexa etc.. but sometimes, if you using a lesser camera means you get better lighting equipment, sound equipment, time/money for better locations and production design, I think that's a worthwhile trade off and the end result will be better.
In general, I think the issue with gear discussion is not that there isn't a difference between cameras, but that usually the difference is way exaggerated. Time, energy and stress is spent worrying over this minor 1% difference when it could be worried about other things that will have a much greater % of quality impact. If you have everything in place, there's no way someone could convince me that a BMPCC or GH4 is preventing them for making a quality movie. An Alexa will be better, sure, but not THAT much better. 
Take a GH4 or a pocket on a big budget, well designed and lit set, and I think people would be shocked at how suddenly cinematic it looks.

Usually I'd define it myself first, but I really want to leave it open to whatever anyone has to say. Maybe mainly I'm just seeing myself less and less interested in someday getting an Oscar. What makes, or would make, you feel accomplished and creatively satisfied?

Creating something that I'll enjoy watching in 10 or 20 years time and be glad I took the time and effort to make. The story will resonate internally from the outset, and the end product will get to the heart of a matter that feels important. Reaching a wider audience would be a bonus.

Sorry but I can't agree with this - if you mean 'save' in the sense of preserving their current/historic size and market penetration. The fact is that there is certainly no technology available today that would let the vast majority of, say compact P&S camera users, produce watchable video. To produce anything of that nature still - and will for some time - needs practise and acquired skill. That majority of consumers neither want nor need to take the time and make the effort to build those skills.
Given the steady improvement in smartphone cameras, which very much allows consumer-level users to produce stills that look fine without skill or knowledge, I can't actually see anything that is going to save the photo camera makers butts in their current forms.
FWIW my prediction is that within a couple of decades we'll either have less than half the current number of manufacturers, or a similar number, but less than half their current sizes/values. Without the cash engine of a large consumer camera market we'll also see a relative rise in prices of the kind of cameras we want as fewer sales have to support the same level of R&D and tooling.

I used to work in the world of obscure international trade shows and magazines, first as an ad/space salesman, later on the operational side. The magazines - with enticing titles like 'World Plastics and Rubber Technology', 'Railway Interiors' and 'Automotive Testing International' were 100% advertiser-led. They had editorial staff, who called themselves journalists - but in reality they were employed to put the words of the advertisers and the exhibitors into a form that looked like journalism but was, in fact, thinly disguised advertorial. There was absolutely no way in the world that any of those magazines would have criticised any advertiser, exhibitor, or potential client of the future - the companies in those industries could have caused the immolation of a small country and the only news about them in our mags would have been about their latest widget. This became especially pernicious once the publishers all jumped on the (far more lucrative) expo business as potential exhibitors would be offered puff pieces in the magazines as an incentive to book stand space.
That, I'm afraid, is the end game in non-news journalism once it becomes advertiser led. In fact, it even happens in pure news as well - witness the ongoing reluctance, for instance, of the Daily Telegraph to publish articles critical of China in the light of its regular, highly profitable, supplements sponsored by that country.
Personally I stopped taking much notice of DPR once Amazon bought it as, having the experience outlined above, I couldn't see how a website owned by one of the largest camera retailers could maintain integrity in the long term. Whether or not they actually have started to water down adverse opinions of cameras or their manufacturers, the fact is that I can no longer be sure that they don't. And that's the pity of it.
I don't make my living with cameras any more - it's a fun hobby, but an incredibly expensive one (well it isn't actually - I've got friends who are into cars and motorbikes who will happily spend tens of thousands of pounds on their passions and no-one really bats an eyelid - I spend £3K on a camera and people think I'm insane) so I need to know that the sources of information I use to guide my purchases are going to give me the bad news as well as the good. I no longer bother with any of the 'magazine' style sites at all - I research potential purchases here and on DVX User and get opinions, in the round, that I can trust.

Things I learned or got reminded of by this video as prosumer camera user.
1. Get your skin tones as close to perfect in the camera as you can and don't wait for post. White balance and tweak the picture profiles etc. 
2. Grade in your camera's native or raw format before transcoding. Makes a case for recording to ProRes if you plan to transcode to edit before grading.
3. Bad glass and poor or wrong filters can mess up the look of way skin reflects light.  Makes a case for straight ND as variable ND's can make an image look a little flat as they are made from polarizers that mess with reflections.
4. The sum is greater than it's parts - High res, slow motion video with great color/skin tones, low noise and high dynamic range is a hard combination to beat and something I and most other filmmakers want in their tool set.
 

It's easy to assert that brand money doesn't influence critique, rather more difficult to substantiate. As a media consumer looking for unbiased information how would you convince me that I can trust what is said in a canon 80D review that appears alongside the 80D infomercial rather than a fluff piece that will make sure that canon sends another cheque with the next advertisement? What are these firewalls you speak of? I'm genuinely interested.

The most seductive and largely useless information about equipment (or perhaps anything that gets touted) is the hyped up apparently 'good' stuff that makes us want to buy, buy buy. But the most meaningful and useful to the end user is more likely to be the realistic appraisal of limitations and failings.
Few want to hear about the bad stuff (advertisers, readers etc) and so advertisers and sites looking to get people excited and spending money (including via affiliate links) are more likely to include hyperactive fluff.
But it's probably the well considered 'bad' stuff that is most relevant to prospective buyers. A careful appraisal of limitations might make you decide to keep your own gear, or pick another product, the limitations of which are more acceptable.
Advertising will corrupt the ability to deliver that careful appraisal, because it runs counter to the preferred narrative of the advertisers and changes the business model to one which is dependent on receiving the revenue of vested interests. Their interests become your interests. There is no skirting this impact, even at a subtle level.
Over time, it is the continued delivery of good quality information that is actually helpful to the prospective purchaser that will engender trust. It is that trust which will become the distinguishing feature and which will become the foundation of a possible business model. Hence, it must be fiercely defended and clearly articulated. Advertising will necessarily corrode that trust, thereby undermining the whole foundation upon which this particular enterprise is built.
It isn't all about ideology. Trust is hard won, but essential for any business. Pretty much all corporations and businesses rely on developing trust with their consumers. However much of that trust is not well deserved, and a lot of businesses go to great extremes to obfuscate and hide how their apparently trustworthy viewpoints are in fact sullied by vested interests. Their great saviour is a sufficient lack of scepticism and attention to detail by the receiving public, and frequently a public who would prefer to get excited or angry rather than to expend the time and energy to think things through.

You can simplify only so much. Having done a few interviews as a one man band I like having a couple of audio options - wireless into camera, plus XLR into separate recorder. There's too much going on when you are running by yourself so mistakes are more likely and if I'm totally reliant on a single setup there's no redundancy. I can set and forget the separate XLR system, leaving it to run throughout, then concentrate on getting the camera and wireless audio up and running. If I need to switch the camera off at any stage, the separate audio is still running and can pick up useful dialogue that can still be used with cut aways or B roll. Having only one camera, or one audio source seems a little lean to me if you are getting paid to come up with the goods.

What's the day-rate for an assistant over there? Going by your setup, I don't think you need more gear or even different gear.

Better to invest in fellow humans than peripheral gear that gets replaced every 9 months and that you already regret immediately after buying. That assistant of yours might actually grow with you and your business, take away your stress of trying to manage a million little technical details, provide a different creative view outside of your own echo chamber and let you step back a bit from worrying about nuts and bolts and concentrate on direction and vision. I mean think about it, instead of monitoring levels on your audio, you can actually listen to the content! Instead of pulling focus you can really direct the talent and assemble the frame you want quicker. The better your work the higher you can request for your budget too no?
Oh and hey, everyone on set (including yourself) might actually enjoy some keen, eager, not yet jaded energy around!

Thanks jcs. I doubt that Trump would -  nay, could hear your message. The leaders of these movements seem inoculated against such. Instead, reaching out to those who have the power to remove them from office is probably the more productive. So as you suggest, self-healing is in order, as is reaching out to others through literature, film, music, discussion and so on. Here's a potent article that addresses the current ideological and political pestilence from an Australian perspective. It talks about the power of decency and literature, amongst other forms of expression. https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2016/october/1475244000/richard-flanagan/does-writing-matter This is a widespread phenomenon.