Liam

Hi Guys... So I received the LS300 yesterday with a fe Olympus lenses (12-50 F3.5-6.3, 45 F1.8, 17 F.18).  I haven't yet the time to really play with the camera but my first impressions are :
- Cheap quality built. Cheap plastics especially on the side handle part. It feel that the whole stuff is empty inside. Rotating the ND Filters make a cheap clunky noise. Mounted a lens on it is not smooth as like on my GH4 for example.
- Compact, I like that.
- I am not sold by the viewfinder. 
- The LCD is "OK" will try in direct sunlight but it does not impress
- Focus peaking is really great, much better than the GH4 and with it you really feel that you are in control.
- It may sound stupid but I love the point and touch AF of the GH4, pity that the LS300 does not offer that as well.
The few minutes that I spend with it did not bring the WOW factor that I was expecting and at the price they are asking it in Japan (~4,165 USD) I would personally opt for a 4K URSA Mini than that.

Anyway start playing with it and soon start to experiment with your requests.
 

OP is very wrong, aps-c and m43 aren't going anywhere in the next few years. True, the 35mm bodies are getting cheaper and smaller but it's a different story with lenses, which are still expensive and humonguos especially compared to mft. How come there are no pancakes  for Sony A7.
We all know that S35 is a standard for cinema and it gives plenty of depth of field control. I really dig shallow depth of field for photography but excessively thin dof doesn't make a film more cinematic, for me it can give the opposite effect. Often it gives a cheap student film/youtube look. Dynamic range, colors, compositions and the set design are what result in cinematic bliss. Many of the best classic cinema feature fuck all of thin dof. I felt that Upstream Color which was praised for beautiful imagery often featured too shallow dof for my taste and it was shot with a GH2.
So very wrong about m43 being garbage for photography. A talented photographer should have no issues with m43, the system can truly shine with certain lenses and will prove limiting only in the most extreme situations.
 

Around 1 hour 6 minutes the DP calls out Tom Hardy saying it's hard to plan shots with sunlight when your actor is 2 hours late everyday.

I don't like FF as much as s35 and s16. So if what you say is true, it would be sad. Having to settle for the FFs crop factor. No tele, heavy ND and so on, no thanks. 
Btw, I doubt Steve Jobs is located inside his tombstone and there for not turning in it either ;)

Who wants to make these with me?
http://www.tonyhillfilms.com/rigs

Looking forward to that test. Do you have dslr, Gh4 or something to throw in as well?  

Here's something I shot on the red one mx - it seems to have a better motion feel to it than the dragon or red epic - I don't know why and I can't verify this - but something about it feels better.  Still it feels really nice - the red one mx.
I'm testing Red One MX vs F35 vs Digital Bolex on Thursday.  testing motion, grading, skin tones, etc etc.
 
 

The bokeh of FF can be a bit overkill though tbh. Like even in Game of Thrones which uses Super 35 I find a bit annoying that they have all these amazing sets but then everything gets blurred out when someone speaks and theres a head shot 

​True.
But lens size will always be linked to body size.
I also prefer full frame for photography. That doesn't make aps-c or m43 dead.
Of course Sony 'admits' it, they have been focussing heavily on fullframe cameras.
Sony is a good example of the lens size 'problem' though. Most of the FE lenses are huge. On the other hand, that is a design choice. Sony could make more small full frame lenses. The 28mm f/2 and 35mm f/2.8 are perfect examples and lenses I'd love to use if I had a A7. I don't like huge beasts like the 35mm f/1.4 or 70-200mm f/4 OSS.
I wish Sony would make more f/2 - f/2.8 lenses. 20mm f/2.8, 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 OSS, 50mm f/1.8 OSS (just a cheap one :)) would be nice. They could be small and not crazy expensive.
One thing that does disappoint me is cost of lenses for smaller sensors and the inability of Olympus/Panasonic to make really FAST lenses. Take the new Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8 for example. It's compact, 534 grams, costs €1299. I'm sure the image quality will be great, but essentially it uses half the glass (and is half the weight) of a full frame equivalent like the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 (€1679), but it is not half the cost. Volume is probably a problem here and again - the quality of the M.Zuiko will be outstanding, but so is the Nikkor.
I just wish M43 lenses were not only half the size and weight, but also half the cost. Or the same price with an aperture that makes the lens actually an equivalent. In theory a 7-14mm f/1.4 should be possible with the same size as a fullframe 14-28mm f/2.8.
So far only Sigma has accomplished something close to this with the 18-35mm f/1.8. Lenses like that show the value of aps-c imo. Would be great if there were more like them.
 

Absolutely agree, Liam. It's horrible how the forums burst with self-proclaimed master critics who have to get their word out about almost everything. The movie is several years old, don't you think Matt would have noticed shortcomings by himself by now? I don't believe in criticism in general, I can answer questions about something critically when asked, but I doubt people can be taught anything. They have to see and want to change it for themselves. I liked the film as well, sure it has flaws, but it's highly personal and individualistic, not some shiny 'I'ma do it like da pros' shit. I could really relate. And I liked the chubby girls.  Geekdom is on the decline, nowadays everyone is a nerd, if you know what I mean. I pity that.
Kudos, Matt, don't get discouraged, just do your thing, you don't need any forum's approval for that.

Thanks, guys. I shot Carte Blanche from February-March 2009, and there aren't indeed any criticisms I hadn't already heard or thought of myself, even before I finished it. I don't think it's very good, but I had fun making it, and it's like a time capsule of my life at that time. Most of the film is deadpan, with a mostly static camera because I was heavily into Jim Jarmusch at the time. I often think of what Scorsese said on the commentary track for his first film Who's That Knocking At My Door. I'm paraphrasing, but it was basically this: "Watching this film is like looking at my old high school yearbook photo." I've occasionally attempted to re-edit the film, but when I look at the footage and think of the story, I realize I can't edit out the adolescence, and I'm not the person I was when I made it.

(I'm in no way an authority in this area)
I thought Carte Blanche has some nice dialogue and complicated emotions and relationships. Enjoyed the oddities. I honestly understand where you're coming from with some of your own criticism of it, but that's you learning or developing your own style. and I think in some ways people really aren't supposed to be corrected when they make something artistic with a vision. we only really get amazing films when someone breaks all the rules and ignores the authorities or doesn't know what they're doing anyway. I'll have to check out more of your stuff

(I'm in no way an authority in this area)
I thought Carte Blanche has some nice dialogue and complicated emotions and relationships. Enjoyed the oddities. I honestly understand where you're coming from with some of your own criticism of it, but that's you learning or developing your own style. and I think in some ways people really aren't supposed to be corrected when they make something artistic with a vision. we only really get amazing films when someone breaks all the rules and ignores the authorities or doesn't know what they're doing anyway. I'll have to check out more of your stuff

​While I can appreciate both sides of this discussion, this is a false analogy. It'd be much more like fuzzy saying you don't need a new typewriter, or new pens, or a new computer to write a good script. Which I would agree with, but I would also say that a new piece of writing software could potentially make scriptwriting a faster process, allowing for more creative time. Or that a new typewriter might inspire you to write. 

​Yeah, that is the point. I'm just saying clearly there's a bit too much enthusiasm on either side of this conflict sometimes. love exploring new technologies on this site, may decide when I have the budget that something is absolutely essential for a film, even have to stick the script in the drawer until I can get this bit of tech. But don't become obsessed and upgrade every week without actually making anything. I have a reeeally low budget setup, but I can't make a film with my phone. It may be possible, but I just can't. I feel like sometimes we're even on the same page there, but arguments erupt anyways because of misunderstanding or whatever. Anyway, I have no reason to disrespect anyone on this blog if they upgrade a lot or somehow cheapskate their way into making 1 frame per minute films with disposable cameras. More power to you

Good for you baxter. Filmmaking should be fun. Success does suck. Ask kurt cobain. Failure is even better. Thats why i write. To fail.
Let me lnow if you need crew or gear for your next film.

Hi.
JVC is going to lend me a JVC GY-LS300 for two weeks to give it a try and I was wondering if someone here would be interested that I test a few things for them? 
So if you want me to look in something particular on this camera or test something special, let me know! It is also a good way for me to give this camera a good try!
Cheers

I relate a lot to that. Hardly requires a response, but I'm inspired by a lot of the same things and agree that it shouldn't be for anyone other than yourselves (especially if you're making something Cassavetean). I've had some trouble thinking of things to write about lately too, but sometimes I'm still making notes of a situation that gives me crazy anxiety and hoping later they can combine into something. A loose scenario with creative friends is a place i wanna go soon, maybe straight up improv, maybe more like group writing, but that could be a freeing solution or detour while still being significant. Good luck, Baxter! I enjoyed that post a lot

I relate a lot to that. Hardly requires a response, but I'm inspired by a lot of the same things and agree that it shouldn't be for anyone other than yourselves (especially if you're making something Cassavetean). I've had some trouble thinking of things to write about lately too, but sometimes I'm still making notes of a situation that gives me crazy anxiety and hoping later they can combine into something. A loose scenario with creative friends is a place i wanna go soon, maybe straight up improv, maybe more like group writing, but that could be a freeing solution or detour while still being significant. Good luck, Baxter! I enjoyed that post a lot

This is another existential filmmaker post spawned by a few recent threads. You've been warned. Also spoilers for a film.
Recently I saw a film that articulated a question I didn't know I was asking. That film was "Frank" the story of a talentless, wannabe songwriter/keyboard player who is recruited to join a band led by a man who wears a fake head at all times. You might have seen it floating around Netflix, and maybe you even disregarded it because it sounds gimmicky, or the poster looked like quirky nonsense, but I decided on a lark to watch it, and it was absolutely devastating. The "protagonist" of the film seems like a nice, sweet guy in the beginning, until he starts exploiting Frank's talent by secretly filming and posting videos of their rehearsals to youtube, eventually earning them a slot at SXSW. He tells Frank "People love us." to which Frank replies "People love us?" The pressure of the show, and pleasing an audience cause Frank to have a nervous breakdown. This film resonated with me in a major way. I watched it once, over a week ago, and I'm still thinking about it. I thought about how fame and success never occurred to Frank. He just created music for the art and expression of it, and when faced with the pressure of a major debut performance at a festival, he creates a terrible song that he thinks is his "most likeable song ever". The entire experience breaks him.
The whole film forced me to think of my goals as a filmmaker. I've wanted to be a filmmaker since I saw the Making Of Jurassic Park on TV when I was six years old. In high school, I got serious about having a career in film after seeing Pulp Fiction and El Mariachi. I then discovered the French New Wave and John Cassavetes, and I wanted to make honest, devastating, achingly truthful and beautiful masterpieces of cinema. I made my first feature at 21...and now I'm almost 28, with not many shorts, and not a single follow-up feature since my first. My first feature was extremely disappointing to me. I was obsessed with it for years, and even tried to make a quasi-remake of it, which was a disaster. I've been struggling to come up with an idea for another film that I like. I haven't been able to finish even a first draft in two and a half years. I used to be able to crank out script after script, draft after draft with all the blind confidence in the world. And since my feature, I've come to the realization that I only really have a few basic themes that I keep going back to, and I keep trying to force myself to think of something different, to be a different filmmaker, but I'm not. And now I'm questioning my goals.
I've wanted a career making indie films so I wouldn't have to work a crappy day job. I've been working the same crappy day job for almost four years straight, except for the nine months where I moved to LA to pursue my career. I could't even find a day job to pay the rent. Toys R Us interviewed me twice and wouldn't hire me to work in the stock room during the holidays. I sold a bunch of my lenses, and the DVX100 I didn't use anymore, for rent money. I moved back to my hometown a year ago, broken and miserable. A year later I'm in a great relationship with a woman I'm moving in with in a month. She also has a three year old daughter, and though I thought I never wanted kids, now I can see myself raising this child with my girlfriend, and marrying her. We both see it. She's extremely supportive of my filmmaking, and doesn't want me to give up. But I just feel discouraged. Discouraged that my films will never look good enough, have good enough acting or be important enough. And I still want to make films, but I'm wondering why I want, or need, to be successful at it. Before I got "serious" about it, I used to have fun making movies. The same group of friends and I would get together and film shorts on the weekends. Most people here I'm sure had the same experience. I think all I want now is to form a troupe of actors/crew members and make cheap movies in our spare time for fun, and perhaps never even show them to anyone else. I'm accepting that I'm nowhere near the level of talent as Francois Truffaut, Paul Thomas Anderson, or David Lynch, and it's okay. I'm giving up on success. I just want to make shit.

​Absolutely. But in the conditions this was a student screening, and expectations are not on a professional level at all. It wasn't a sob story - this guy who can barely do or say anything at all made a film. I loved how random it was. Although it was terrible - I enjoyed it. 
Anyway, this topic is going off on a weird tangent... I have no idea how to get it back on topic. I think I'm all motion cadenced out!
 

nice and constructive

So one has guessed - so I'll say:
Slow Mo = FS7
Everything else = GH4

Honestly they match perfectly and I can only suppose something, but just because you asked. Otherwise I would not notice that you used 2 cameras

​I love me some up-tempo pacing (I have the attention span of a 6-year-old), so I didn't mind it, really. Also, a lot of these cuts seemed motivated by the music. Now at first I was like: oh no, this is one of these pretentious hipster vids with random all-over-the-place stuff just for the sake of it. But then after a few seconds the track picked up. The fragment visuals led up to the establishing shot of the street. Then showing the girls having fun on their night out in the city, playing pool, singing, dancing, chatting, laughing. Just a good time.
Visually I just found it to have very pleasing colors and light. Very nice depth of field and softness, together with the motion and grain it felt very filmlike and organic. I absolutely adored the look in the screencap below. Very dreamy, nice silky milky blacks. Nice bokeh going on. If you don't get that. Well, I guess everyone's got different taste. Would be boring if we'd all be the same!

About the fuzz and cuts with no clear purpose... you could also interpret it as 'the next day's memory of last night'. When you were out the night before, the next day you probably remember bits and pieces, but not everything is quite as clear. So in a way, you could interpret the way the footage is being presented to us as not an in-the-moment documentation, but more of a dreamy memory flashing by before the viewer's eyes.
It was a fashion piece. I assume the bags were the actual main characters in this and incorporated in such way. Together with the bracelets they really stood out with their vibrant colors.
So, I think this approach has paid off quite nicely. It works for me atleast. It shows the power of the tools used and Ed's creative and artistic side to set a certain mood. Now, you might not want (and you shouldn't want) to go with this look for everything you shoot. But just as a camera is a tool, so are different grades, cuts and grains...