Jimbo

That's a great deal. Another really nice piece shot on the F3. Cooke zoom I believe.
 

Thanks, @Jimbo and I agree with the approach you're taking. Wish I had more discipline, myself. The constant behind success seems to be focus. Ideally on the right thing! Which is why I need to figure out what I want in the first place. :/
@kaylee, I’m not signed anywhere for anything so I don’t have a clue. If anything, Tim’s advice (which rings true) is probably the best here. But I have a number of friends and friends of friends signed to major agencies. You need to look at it in terms of supply and demand. Maybe you have the commodity they want, maybe you don’t. If you do, they’ll sign you. It sounds to me like agency connections are the commodity you want, which isn’t necessarily a great start. 
Talent agencies have access to production value. They can put together a feature. What they need is a vision… at least an idea. Maybe it’s visual (say what you will about Michael Bay, but that guy can shoot) or emotional (Spielberg) or conceptual (Dan Harmon or Charlie Kaufman). Maybe you're just a competent director, or writer, or good looking actor. They can use that. They’ll provide the rest. If you're signed on something visionary, they’re basically going to ask you to remake your good idea with good production value. Your first gig after you’re signed will be essentially remaking whatever got you signed–this time with proper production value. It's not for everyone. Most people I know who get signed hate it.
But a lot of what we’re focusing on at this site is how to get that production value without an agency behind us. And we have to ask ourselves why isn’t anyone funding our idea if it’s so great. And we also need to ask ourselves, if our idea is so good, why does it need all that production value just to get noticed. If you can answer this question–and maybe your idea really is legitimately ahead of its time or so personal or crazy you can only express it on your own and you need to make it to even express its potential–then focus on that aspect of it which makes it so good and yet so unfamiliar, exciting (to you), and new. As David Lynch would say:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4468dVu_PaM
The donut, ideally, is what got you into this field in the first place! Anyhow, maybe I’m just writing myself a pep talk. But don’t focus on all the things you know can go wrong (still use your knowledge constructively or you might get in over your head) or all the tangential interests or gear you want to involve unless you’re exploring a new technique relating to certain gear specifically, and if you are, just focus on that one technique. (Like a stunning low light video or hyper lapse or motion control video.) Don’t add technical complications unless they’re crucial to the concept (but, like, get good sound and decent performances). Peter Jackson talks about how he wouldn’t have even made the films he first made if he knew what he knows now about filmmaking. He’d be too worried about what goes wrong (the hole) instead of what he wants to say (the donut). Spielberg seems to direct worse the more closely involved he is as a producer, or the more his financial obligations as a producer escalate. Even those guys don’t need those voices in their head. So get your other voices out of your head. You don’t have to impress every audience. What people on this forum want is not always gonna be what talent agencies want. Pleasing a given audience is a worthy goal. But pleasing every audience is going to put your work in a narrow cross-section or reduce it to lowest common denominator. Maybe it fits. There’s populist stuff that’s amazing. But if your vision is more peculiar maybe choose your audience as narrowly. David Lynch himself doesn't have a big audience relative to his fame, but his fearlessness lends to his cult status within that audience. 
Or if you just want to get signed or get into a festival for the sake of accomplishment or career then watch exactly what they’re producing or accepting and emulate it better and better and network harder and harder every year. This can work. If you're submitting to a festival without attending it first or watching a large portion of its prior programming it's like asking someone out without having a conversation first. Whether you get rejected or not, it's gonna probably end up weird. I don’t think that scene is for me anyway. Too shy. :/
Fwiw I've seen that web series thing work. I think there were four episodes. They were good! Made for pretty cheap, I think. And weird. 
Lastly, I saw a YouTube video where a successful writer mentioned that just because you have one grand idea doesn't mean you need to tell that story first. As much as focus matters, it needn't be on your magnum opus. Even if that opus is your donut of donut, maybe there are some good donut holes (not the figurative hole, but a figurative donut piece carved from the... never mind).
Maybe take some other simpler ideas to start with and just have fun with those first. Plus, Gall's Law and all. Keep it simple to start.

Great post, @HockeyFan12. Like an arrow to the core.
I think we've all gravitated to this site because many of us are in similar boats. We have big, beautiful dreams but on our quest for knowledge we get caught up in the nitty gritty of tech hoping for some panacea (read: magic camera or lens combo) that will solve the heartache of the long and daunting road we have all chosen to stomp along.
It's nice not to be stomping alone, hence why this punk's outpost survives in the wilderness, but it's important we don't lose sight of our goals. And if we don't have a goal it's important, like you said, to spend time working out what that is.
My goal is to get my work on the silver screen. Something I've written that maybe I can direct too. 6 years ago I setup a videography business to take a step towards that inevitability, scraping a living for many years, and I most certainly got swallowed alive by the tangible allure of tech, until I realised 5 years had gone by and I had bought and sold more cameras and lenses than I had written words. I was pissed with myself to say the least. So for the last year I've been working hard on priorities and most importantly of all building a daily habit of writing, akin to a daily habit of exercise and eating well. It's work in progress, as is life, you never really solve it, you just get up each day and continue the fight.
You need laser beam focus and steely determination to achieve your dreams, and as each day passes we have one less day to achieve it.
I feel at peace on the days I have written, and that's all the indication I need that that's where I need to keep my focus.
Of course I have bills to pay too so this is where the 80/20 rules comes in. 80% of time working on your current business and 20% of time working on the business you want to be in.
Great work, Tim. I'm sorry the film was a turkey but that's not your fault. Are you still writing? I hope so.
Thanks for sharing, Andrew.
Right, I've done my 80% (editing bloody weddings!), had my break (EOSHD and a cup of tea), I'm off home to write for 3 hours!

I guess I can't relate to the genius part, but otherwise I know what you mean. Fwiw, a no budget short can get attention. I've seen it happen. Little projects that are very modest by this site's standards getting people signed to CAA, etc. and resulting in seven-figure feature deals almost immediately. 
I've been very interested lately in what online communities in past years have birthed significant mainstream talents. YouTube has launched a host of actors but fewer filmmakers (which makes sense given the platform). Vimeo has launched a few filmmaking careers, but even fewer than it seems. Vimeo is sort of the new festival scene: very cool to be part of and show off on, but deceptively hard to leverage toward getting in somewhere lucrative unless you're already in somewhere lucrative through other means and just need to manufacture visibility.
But with YouTube, by the time you're Markliplier or Pewdiepie, by the time you're being begged to produce your own show you're already making millions a year... and you can get to be those guys organically. 
YouTube is the stronger platform. By far. For in front of the camera talent, not directors, though. :/ Where do directors go to shine?
I haven't seen a lot of new talent emerging from Reduser, etc. though there are some established all stars there already and great discourse. Communities that existed earlier than that are very interesting, though. A lot of directing talent emerged from dvxuser, though many of the users there were behind handles and didn't publicize their success so much once they went mainstream or their connection to that site was since forgotten. But a number of very slick visual filmmakers started there. Not slick by this site's standards, but hey, they were shooting on minidv. Super talented people.
The other community that launched a ton of talent is Channel101. They were big on dvx100s, too, but the production values there are poor by comparison. Intentionally so. But the writing is GREAT on that site. Better than on most commercial content. A lot of incredibly talented writers and comedians started their careers there with content that was messy and cheap but brilliantly written and conceived and with amazing storytelling. Of any community, that was the most impactful.
None of these talents started rich.
What does this say? That if you have all the money in the world it doesn't help unless you can create something great. So if you have a great eye or are a great writer, pretty soon someone with all the money in the world will hire you! It also says that storytelling is the most important talent of all, but technical skill is useful, too. And if you're rich, hire the best of both, collaborate. It's the tried and true method...
Which gets down the bigger point: both of those communities started around narrow goals: make something that looks good or make something that's funny. Commercial content is usually made by people with unbelievably narrow aptitudes. Like, someone who just shades fur but who shades fur REALLY well. Or someone who edits a certain kind of scene in a narrow subset of a genre. A guy who lights cars. But REALLY freaking well. Even the hottest directors are those with known and inimitable styles. And they're all working together in a slow, inefficient, but highly effectively system nonetheless that combines all their talents into something greater than the sum of their parts (ideally). That's why people get signed to CAA for their short films: either they show they can do something no one else can do or that they can mimic what someone else can do that there's a supply for. That's it. Again, narrow skill sets. Used to create a bigger product.
This site doesn't cater to that kind of person. This is a site for people who want to know how to do it all. And do it all for cheap. This site is for punks. For rebels.
And no surprise it's harder to launch a brilliant career on that, even if "that" includes a skill-set encompassing many potentially lucrative careers, if narrowly applied.
So the question is, why do we think this way? Why are we thinking with so many brains when all we need is one good one?
Broad as our interests get, they always begin with one dream. One thing we want to communicate. One idea that would be impossible to realize due to money, due to narrow-minded investors, due to how slowly commercial sets run, due to how big or slow older cameras are or how outmoded productions technique can be. Conventional wisdom says it's impossible. But we're still dead set on learning how to make it possible. So we learn and learn and learn. We post here. Read here. Post elsewhere. Read elsewhere. Absorb tech. Absorb culture. See where they meet. We're the Steve Jobses (or Kanye Wests), seeing where technology and culture are heading and where they intersect and ignite. We see the big picture no one else sees. But we're also very cursed. Cursed because we can only show other people what we see by painting it ourselves.
And yet we're getting caught up squabbling over which brush to use.
This site is where we explore our interests, sure. But it's those interests that brought us here in the first place. They don't emerge from this community. You know what you need to do now because you knew before. That's the problem with resources like this: passions trickle down into tangential debate. That original passion is diverted into tribal politics, when we should just be taking information as information and opinion as opinion.
You like a GH4, I like a C300. Our opinions vary and so do the goals that led us to be so passionate about such silly things as that. We didn't get started because we liked GH4s or C300s. We got started because we had big, brilliant, original goals. And those goals aren't silly. What if Steve Jobs got stuck on a messageboard debating what brand of a certain component to use in the Macintosh instead of making the Macintosh? There are hundreds of thousands of GH4 users out there (I'm guessing). There's only one you. And you picked the camera up because you wanted to do something with it. It's not about the camera. It's about you. 
This website brings people together but it distracts us from what brought us here in the first place. Its strength is the talent and motivation of its members; its weakness is that same passion being wasted on bickering and self-doubt. There's a wealth of information, and we came for that. Let's take it and leave the rest behind. The other brains. The other voices.
In moments like these I think we need to ask ourselves: what, exactly, do you want to do? Why did you get into this field in the first place? What do you need to know in order to do it.
Find out.
Then do it.

If you zoom in 500% you’ll see its not a real horse, but tiny dots.

Hi Andrew:  Any input you can give to Panasonic would be terrific - I really appreciate it!  I'm really psyched about the GH5, and think it could become a really major anamorphic camera since the format is basically the same size as a 4:3 crop of Super 35.
Regarding anamorphic lenses, I'm currently working on primes, and they are mechanical beasts due to the Panavision-style counter-rotating  Stokes lenses.  So, I'm in the weeds worrying about screws, bearings, and special tools needed to manually pre-load a whole bunch of anti-backlash gears.  One thing related to M43 and the GH5 is that they will be compatible with the M43 Ultra Speed Booster via high quality PL-to-EF adapters, which will create T/1.4 speed for all but the longest focal lengths.

Hi,
Wanted to make something new so I worked on this video for several month.
 
Most of the tilt-shift effect is simulated in post (masking in AE), it's not as good as the real out of focus blur created by TL lenses but much more practical than having a huge drone carrying a DSLR camera. I also modded a GoPro lens that was mounted on a custom made drone (TBS Discovery with Pixhawk FC) to get the "native" effect. The inspiration for this project came from Keith Loutit, the god of tilt-shift timelpase.

Ignore all sides who preach hate and division, brothers and sisters. They are all coming from the same source, the same people pulling the strings, a layer above and invisible to most. Their goal is to create division and civil war, WW3, to consolidate their global power. DC is locked in self-destructive corruption, so we need to manifest miracles to bring about peaceful change. Perhaps best case scenario is to pardon them all if they'll all leave peacefully. They have most people looking down at minutiae, when we really need to be looking up at our rulers and working together in unity to create real change, at the root source of all the world's manufactured problems.
Spread the message of love and unity. Think in terms of what you want, as opposed to what you don't want.
What we think becomes reality.
 

Just shot an ad for a bank using the GH5 and SLR 2x anamorphic 50mm prime. This is pretty much my go-to combo right now outside of the Ursa + Sigma Cines.
 

Just a quick review of my finding pairing the GH5 with a anamorphic run and gun setup. In this review I include some close up footage using the SLR Magic 1.8 diopter. So far this camera is proving to be quite interesting. It's small, well compared to my Canon, and extremely capable. I might go as far to say at this moment the GH5 is perhaps my favorite video camera. The grade is somewhat extreme, and I did murder the blacks, but it was the only way to get the high contrast grundy look I was going for. Opinion/advice all welcomed
 
 

If you want to go that route, Tokina has been sporting a versatile line-up as well; people have been combining 'em with Panasonics since the GH2 (it used to be one of the few ways to go really wide, mounting the 11-16mm f/2.8 on a focal reducer... nice for glidecam schtuff). Before the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8, that Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 was the go-to combo (and has become a Cinema ATX option as well: http://www.tokinacinema.com/11-16mmT3.html , $999 on B&H now). Quick overview of bright APS-C zooms in Canon mount: https://geizhals.eu/?cmp=1375683&cmp=1235276&cmp=934581&cmp=814123&cmp=511048&cmp=459597&cmp=219029&cmp=189159 . The Tamron f/2.8 zooms used to always be the go-to choice for T2i/550D shooters. The Sigma of course indeed sounds practical, with its optical stabilization and affordability.

Yes there is a way. If you use the joystick you can highlight and change the numbers.

I have just spent the evening watching the two first episodes from season 2 of Plant Earth and the behind the scenes of both episodes. On Blu-ray of course

The show is just as awesome as season one. It truly is the best shot nature videos ever.
I recently saw season one again and it definitely hold up today, but this was beyond.
What did you guys think about the show, gear, techniques? 
Just some thoughts that came to my mind afterwards.
The Arri Amira and Red cameras delivered of course, but the shots that blew my mind the most was from a Sony F5.
Now its impossible to compare footage from two cameras shot by two completely different teams on different continents, different lights, etc and so forth.
But still... the F5 colors blew my f...ing mind. The m4/3 camera (looked like one) that they first tried for flying shoots with the para sailer actually looked really good. They had it mounted on the helmet. To bad they couldn't use the shots.
When they ditched that plan and flew tandem they could use something bigger (Sony A7x), it also looked nice. When the scenes are so far apart they could mix ARRI, Red, F5, etc and no matching issues. But within many locations they still used different cameras and shooters and I still never felt it uneven. Boy does sound effects really make or break nature videos. Its a bit funny when considering that more than a few fights on forums regarding video looks and grading have had crusaders of the "real look" and "looking through a window look". And they almost always use nature shows as good examples of "real". Well.. unless they put a law mic on a crocodile, that aint particularly real These where just some thoughts, felt like sharing. Watched with my GF and she couldn't give two shits and a popsicle about the gear
The whole thing made me want to buy a BMD and go shoot. At least to go snap nature photos with the X-Pro2 or even better, the Sigma SDQ.
 

I have a GH5 and love it. The BM cameras have a lovely image but if I were shooting something "cinematic" I'd probably still pick the GH5 because of its usability.
I completely agree with you that the precision of cameras and lenses is killing the magic of images. However, with good lighting and filters you can create fantastic images. I stumbled across this today on a colour grading Facebook page. Really impressed with the look. Shot in VLOG, graded in Davinci, Sigma zooms:
 

I think it just effects your whole vibe as well to be honest.
All this stuff I'm doing with hardware controllers and stuff is a laugh and it fires you up creatively to make these cameras do more because its trying to bridge these gaps and get more out of less.
And do it for the benefit of everyone.
If I was developing stuff to control REDs etc I'd be far more po faced about it and undoubtedly looking to make money off it.
You and I haven't actually met but the first time I came across you - and then in turn discovered this blog - was at the Convergence event in London about six years ago. You were there, Bloom was there (and already seemed to me to be interested in commercially riding the wave of what was happening if you know what I mean) and I remember you had a Teradek hdmi transmitter that could do the at the time magical feat of streaming live to an iPad. At that point you were already eschewing the 5DMKII in favour of the GH2 as it was more interesting and more versatile and cheaper etc for young film makers whereas the vibe even then was heading towards the 5DMKII being the entry point and wanting to go up in price from there. 
So, whilst I understood where people were coming from on that C200 thread, in terms of how people view this stuff now compared to then where a C200 is now almost like a base point then it really felt like a shark jumping moment reading it.
It felt like punk then. 
It feels like prog rock now.

I remember a story many years ago when home studio recording first started to take a hold and Tom Robinson (ask your Dad, kids) was talking about why he'd got a new fangled (at the time) Tascam Portastudio to record his demos on. His reply has always stuck with me because he said that when a band reaches a certain level of success the first thing they do is get flight cases for their gear and cables that you could tie the QE2 to the quayside with. This all then has to go into storage. So when he felt like writing a song, he'd have to call a roadie, call a van hire place, get the roadie to go to the storage place to pick up the gear, book a rehearsal room (because the flight cases made it impractical to have in the house), drive to the rehearsal room, wait for the gear to be unpacked and plugged in and then he could start to jam and record ideas. At which point he'd forgotten what it was he wanted to do and had lost the energy to do it anyway. With the portastudio, he could just switch it on and get on with it.
I see a lot of parallels here too.
The only thing thats inspired me to pull the RED Epic out of its case since I got it back was to do the side by side to tune the GX80 profile.
It felt like having to go to the corner shop in a Sherman tank.
In my real day job I have to take the same 'get the big clunky stuff out' approach because there is an expectation to deliver a set standard both in terms of image quality but pretty much in terms of content too. Coverage is what its all about to be honest. And the demands of that type of efficiency directs you to a certain type of kit. All of which means I'm about as creative as the guy sitting next to me who has also got exactly the same sort of kit (with a 50/50 shot on the brand). Which means to say, not very creative. Or certainly not a massive differential in creativity. We're looking at the same scene and covering it with the same kit so inevitable we're going to be much of a muchness creatively. But the creativity can sometimes be forced upon you (by equipment failure usually!) so you have to do something with what you've got and that triggers the resourcefulness response that is so often at the root of creativity.
Being in a situation of "I can't make what I want" often makes you find better ways to make what you actually need.
After wrestling with the Epic and then putting the same lens on the GX80 and shooting the same thing, I was left (with a bit of twiddling) with these two test charts.
So, could I shoot this same scene with a camera that cost less than the media of the other one?
Yes.
Could the same be said the other way round about what I could shoot with the little camera?
Yes but not without calling the roadie and hiring the van and getting the flight cases and, well you get the point.
 

Shot on the GH5 in 3 days. A concept trailer done having a zero budget for our upcoming first feature film.
I really like what I can squeeze out of the internal 10 bit V-Log footage. DR, lowlight and colors are really good.
Everything was shot with sharpening and nr set to -5 and a Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter applied in front of the lens (12-35mm 2.8 V1, 20mm 1.7, 42.5mm 1.7) to make it smoother. Colorgrading done in Davinci Resolve. Drone shots by the DJI Mavic (the internal sharpening is hideous tbh...).
 

Clearly this camera is not meant as an A-cam to GH5 B-cam... it is meant to be a B-Cam to the Varicam LT. This is why it uses the same mount as the Varicam LT. This is why it's color science will match the Varicam... not the GH5. This is why it is designed to be mountable on drones. 
When people say M43 is not meant for professional work, it is not the same as saying no professionals use m43. I think we all know pro work has even been done with smartphones. But in most cases, m43 will not be the ideal choice for professional engagements. Moreover, the DSLR form-factor in general is not ideal for professional video work. However, it does have it's uses. I think it's fare to say the with the introduction of the EVA1 and C200 we are moving into a new era of budget filmmaking. We now have compelling options from Canon, Panasonic and Sony, for true video cameras, with real XLR imputs, SDI, remote, network, timecode etc... You might notice that I left BM off that list... I consider them more of a niche player. I think most that are drawn to the former brands will not jump on BM as these cameras have a reputation for not being the most dependable option. So for those of us that require good customer service, and rugged hardware the BM will remain something that only sees use in personal projects.
I will not purchase either camera until all the smoke clears. I need to see finalized specs and footage from Panasonic. And I will not buy the Canon until I hear details on the implementation of the XF-AVC codec. Will it be 8-bit or 10-bit? And will it be a paid upgrade? Will it ship on later cameras for free? At present I am leaning towards the Canon, but that could change if Pansonic brings their A-game with the EVA1. These are interesting times.

@mercer Read 80D, replied with the only words worth of this camera.
As you know C100markII is my favorite camera for most uses, but if there is a C100markIII with 4K capabilities (and it should be, really soon) then it won't cost 4500 euros, so the new Panasonic will compete with the III, and not the II. The C100markIII it can be north of 6500euros, to close the gap between the 13.000 euros Canon C300 mark II (and look at those specs for 13.000euros).
When they are both out we will compare and decide (I am definitely in the market for such a camera), I favor Canon in general, so many years they have treat me good, but as you know I am brand agnostic, whatever works; but in 2017 I can't buy a 4500 camera with only 35Mbps 8 bit bitrate, even though it is a magically robust codec.
Raw isn't something they will give for cheap, even the new Ursa reaches 5 number price territory if you include all things necessary. I can accept such a camera for 6500euros, if it has everything else I need in that price range, and get raw out of a Atomos or Video Devices recorder.
Seriously, for more expensive products we just rent a camera, but of course it is good to have raw with some way. Now, if Pana gives as raw in that price range, then thank you very much!
In my next buy I would like to use more dual pixel technology, so ideally I would like a C100markIII (or C200, whatever it's called) and a CN-E lens.
P.S what's wrong with G85?! I consider it to be a more advanced camera than the 80D, and native lenses are just fine. GH5 is extremely cheap for what it offers. Unbelievably cheap, and there is the GH4 for less than 999$ as a worthy option. 

There are some long plates that also act as lens supports or large telephoto lenses.....if you mounted one of those on the tripod head as per Hans Punk's suggestion, and then mounted the camera where the lens support goes, it will put the sensor exactly at the eye position of a passenger...a little modification may be required (I've never used one) but it could be a sturdy rapid solution...any ratchet straps from a hardware store for luggage racks will work for securing the tripod...
https://www.amazon.com/Sirui-TY-350-Telephoto-Support-Plate/dp/B00AZTCHI4
something like this

Any tie down/ratchet straps will work...can be found at most DIY places. Magic arms with clamps at both ends are good for support and C-stand knuckles and rods can make lots of funky rigs possible...but maybe overkill for your needs.
Maybe try the tripod and straps first for a test...as 2-3 decent straps will cost under 20 quid. Maybe some carpet or padding to go between seat and tripod if cranking the straps super tight (to stop any dents/rips in seat upholstery)  If that solution does not look practical maybe look into that headrest mount.

Either way I would test out before the shoot as much as you can.
Unless monitoring wireless away from the car...you won't be able to see 'live' the amount of shake or vibration that gets picked up. It's well worth testing out and reviewing footage to make sure any rig solution is working. You should be good in minimising shake if using a very wide lens like you mentioned.
Strapping a hefty lump (tripod and head) firmly to a large fixed point (passenger seat) is going to give better stability...it may not look as pretty, but it should do the job. Any fixed single clamp/bracket/arm is often perfect for GoPro weight cameras, but for anything heavier tends to make the rig vibrate. Ideally you may want to ratchet-strap the collapsed tripod to the passenger seat rear and maybe use additional straps/clamps to door handles or other fixed features inside the car as long as they are not in vision of your lens.

Did something similar a while back for passenger POV and had no time to pre-rig anything. I ended up removing passenger seat headrest and ratchet strapping the tripod (folded closed) to the back side of the passenger seat. Tripod head and camera was then free to occupy the space where the headrest used to be. A bonus of the setup was that the tripod head could also pan and tilt by an operator in the back of the car, approximating the head turns of our passenger's POV whilst in a car chase. 
For your needs it could be similar setup...but with an extension or longer plate on the tripod to give the camera a bit more overhang, closer to where the passenger's head would be. Magic arms are good, but not the best for camera support on their own if car is moving...they tend to vibrate. Magic arms (used in multiples) are great for additional support and cranking down a grip for 'on the fly' rigs like this. If the car is to be moving, it is generally best to strap down a hi-hat or tripod solution where multiple points of support from straps and clamps can be employed...something where vibration can be minimised as much as possible.