mercer

Like most people, I watch 99% of online videos on my phone... which may be why I am always fighting for the cheapest of camera options. But on my phone, I could practically tell zero difference in quality between the Canon and the GH5 other than FOV differences and perhaps a hair more detail in the wide shots on the GH5. The color looked better on the Canon, though... so it’s really a toss up. Imo there is definitely a place for bridge cameras and even camcorders for low budget event or even narrative work. In a lot of ways they make more sense. Look at the Sony RX10... even the original one... that camera can be had for less than $400 now. If Sony/Zeiss even made a lens like that f/2.8 24-200mm, it would cost at least $1000 but probably closer to $1500. Now add in the built in NDs, the mic input (which is pretty damn good) and the headphone input and for less than $500 one can shoot a feature film on it. Will it be as good as a $2000 camera? No. Or even a $1000 camera? Probably not. But it should be better than what Friedkin used for this documentary and definitely better than what Soderbergh used for Unsane... so for the right project... these cheap bridge cams like the RX10 Mark I or II, or the FZ1000 or FZ2500, or the XC10 now that they’re coming down in price seems like the perfect choice for nano budget filmmaking and event work.

It was really just a camera test, but yes... no actors were harmed in the making of this video... I can get one new for around $1000, maybe $850 for gray market. But you’re right, it is a self contained digital S16 cinema camera for run and gun filmmaking. But for a grand... there’s other options. That’s true but I also already have lenses and NDs for my 5D3. So it’s a toss up really.

Yeah that camera is a blast... Definitely my favorite Panasonic I ever owned. And weirdly enough, other than my first ML Raw video, the slow motion video, from the FZ2500 of my friend walking and getting shot probably is my most liked video. But compared to the RX10ii, I don’t know if it’s worth the price increase. And to be honest, if I end up looking for small event jobs, I think I’d rather have a Canon for its AF. An 80D seems like it would be a workhorse for little Billy’s 5th birthday party.

Yeah it’s going to be tough in another few years. I’m in the trade show industry and a recent trend I’ve been noticing is the exhibitors shooting their own booths with small point and shoots, iPhones or even GoPro cameras. I’ll hate to see what it’s like when millenials are in charge of budgets. For the most part, I’m a hobbyist, but shooting narratives, even on a shoestring budget, is getting to become an expensive endeavor. So, I was contemplating getting small event gigs... birthday parties, family reunions... low budget kind of stuff just to fund my short films. But when I hear about what’s happening out there, I wonder if it’s worth it... and I am kind of oblivious as to where to start to be honest. With that being said, films like this, shot like this, I find really liberating. It reminds me more of 2010 than what the DSLR Revolution unfortunately turned into. The idea that one can buy a Sony a5100, RX10, Canon 80D or G7Xii or Panasonic P&S and shoot something acceptable is pretty exciting to me. And good or bad, or cashing in on his legacy or not, it’s films like this and Soderbergh’s Unsane and that The Break In movie that will make these $300 cameras or phones acceptable in coming years. Will they ever look as good as an Alexa or a Red... nope... but what camera under 5 grand comes close anyway? For those that eat at the low budget, I understand the distress this idea may cause.

1) Where exactly is it overused? If you’re referring to YT videos, then you’re probably right. But can you name specific films where it is overused and not a convention of the storytelling? 2) FTWD is only in the beginning of its 4th season... so you liked the last season of FTWD better than the last season of TWD? 3) I don’t hate the look of FTWD, I just think TWD looks better. This season of FTWD looks pretty bad though... in last night’s episode, I think they just threw an M31 LUT on the footage. But I do like the desaturated shots they do for the time jump sequences.

Shallow depth of field is a storytelling tool. Some people went overboard with it and most were do to lens tests on YT but for filmmaking... the reasons discussed here have missed the best argument for it for the low budget filmmaker. The beauty of the 5D2, t2i, and other larger sensor cameras that started the DSLR Revolution, wasn’t only that more people had access to inexpensive cameras, it’s that low to no budget filmmakers could shoot with shallow DOF and blur the background. It hid the flaws in amateur sets, and hid the public during guerrilla shooting. For the first time, a no budget filmmaker could take a camera into a restaurant and look like a tourist while they shot a dialogue scene. Sorry... but to say it’s overused, is like saying you don’t like a two shot because most dialogue scenes open with them. And sorry again, but how can anyone find FTWD better than TWD? I like both for different reasons but there really isn’t a comparison in filmmaking, acting and story. Saying one is more ridiculous than the other is an argument that isn’t allowed in a story about the zombie apocalypse. And finally, I agree about the digital look of FTWD compared to TWD... especially when they are on back to back. I love the Alexa, it is the best digital image on the planet... and in my opinion nothing comes close to it. But the S16 on TWD is just in a different league. I was actually curious why? S16 has always looked kinda meh to me, even when done right... but TWD cinematography looks like an epic.

I think you missed my point or, in my haste, I didn’t explain it properly. So let me try again... Regardless of this film or its IQ... or its lack thereof... what I see in this movie is the liberty to grab a $300 camera, plug a mic into that camera, and shoot a film. With the distribution landscape changing every day, the appreciation for classical film theories and practices becoming obsolete by this changing landscape, and the growing need for content... the future of low budget media distribution will fall to the extreme low end, there will be little need for the prosumer videographer. There will be high end and low end. More average, everyday people will become “content creators” and they won’t spend $2000 on a camera. They will use their iPhone, their GoPro, a point and shoot or a cheap DSLR. The idea of investing thousands of dollars into a short film will be a thought of the past. Now this won’t happen tomorrow but in another ten years... maybe. I think the question is... will the quality of the lower end image acquisition become better or will the taste of the viewer become more ambivalent? And if famous Hollywood film directors see a way to make money on a shoestring budget, how long will it take before band managers realize they can shoot music videos on an iPhone or an LX100 or a t7i? How long will it take for a bride and groom to ask their future brother in law or guests to shoot their wedding on their iPhones? In a lot of ways this is depressing but in some ways, this is liberating... cream will always rise to the top. So, if you are talented, you’ll have nothing to worry about. A talented filmmaker with good ideas will make any camera look good. But also a normal person with a great idea, will get their 15 minutes.

Maybe they’ll throw in a mini XLR too. The Mark II has that cool sync tone that works with their Olympus field recorder. I actually have an older model Olympus recorder and I love it... so even some kind of synced time code between their camera and recorders would be interesting.

@Zak Forsman Nice framing. I love the symmetry and art direction in the two shot. The fact that he’s drinking wine and she’s drinking a beer says a lot. Obviously, there is a lot going on in that scene... she has a plate of food and his hands may or may not be tied under the table... either way, it’s a good shot. I also really like the final shot of her dead center in the frame. She seems so confidently demented with that smirk on her face... good stuff.

Any chance of persuading Olympus to include 24p Raw video in the E-M5 III? Even ProRes Raw at 1080p or 2K would be pretty epic with their superior IBIS.

I’m surprised it took so long for someone to say this looks like trash. I could not disagree more. This looks like the future to me. Friedkin is more in tune with the future and how media will be produced than any prosumer on this site. Grab a camera and tell a story, that is the future. Unsane is a good example as is that Amazon Prime movie called The Break In. Those people made a small fortune on a found footage movie shot on an iPhone. Sure Friedkin cashed in on his legacy and he probably could have used a better camera, but this is just a sign of things to come. Did it look great, no not really, but I was more interested in the circus side show element than the artifacts or overly saturated image. That camera has horrible preamps, but it was good enough for me to hear and get freaked out by the Latin or Aramaic or whatever the Devil’s official language is. In some ways, I think it’s better to have a shite image than a decent one. When you compare a good, prosumer image from the GH5 or a7sii... or whatever to an Alexa or Red, they pale in comparison... they look good but off. When you look at an image from a crap camera, there is no comparison whatsoever, so it doesn’t even matter.

That does seem odd, can you return it and pick up a different one?

https://kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/50mm-f12.htm The bokeh sounds consistent with the review. But the AF seems off... of course if you’re not using AF Fine Tuning it seems like it will be difficult to get perfect, fast AF wide open. I don’t own the lens, but I’ve been looking at getting the FD L version and they share similar characteristics.

Trust me, I understand it and I don’t see how anything I have written disputes your comments? Although this practice has been around since Edison’s time, if a product has potential to make money, the company will invest the R&D into that product.

Well, despite this forum’s name, there is an anti-Canon bias running rampant on these pages. But if you go on Instagram, you will see a slew of Canon video users. If you go to trade shows, you will see Canon cameras working the show floor. If you attend weddings, the lion’s share of videographers use Canon. If you follow vlogs, the majority are shot with Canon. Only in forums like this is Canon a bad word. With working professionals, Canon cameras are workhorses. @kye

If there’s a market for it, Canon will make it. Like every other company, Canon exists to make a profit.

Haha, when she fell I almost pissed myself. Good stuff, Boz. I love how you are using these cameras from yesteryear in your films... very inspiring!!! I am going to mess around with my eos-m next week. Did you use ML with this short? I want to experiment with the 3x Bitrate and Crop mode. Your profile looks great. So expect a donation. Have you compared your profile to others like Cinestyle or Marvels? I always used Prolost Flat in the past and found it pretty good, so since your profile is based on that but takes it further is very intriguing.

I agree with KnightsFan, I’d go with a 50mm, either a 1.8 or a 1.4 and decide from there if you prefer a wider or longer lens. When I used to shoot on crop sensor cameras, I liked to be between 35 and 50mm after the crop, so I never owned too many 50mm lenses. Now that I have a FF camera, I am discovering and testing a bunch of lenses, I never would have bought before. And it’s great because 50mm lenses are cheap. The EF Mount is so adaptable that there are a bunch of vintage lenses that could work. Nikkors are great because they are known for their cinematic look at a good price point. But if you are only looking for a few manual primes, there are also Contax Zeiss or Olympus OM or Yashica ML or Pentax that also have some great choices. And since the advent of the cropped sensor, there are so many cheap 50mm lenses on the used market to experiment with. Now I have purchased 99% of my lenses from eBay. As long as you buy from a seller with a good feedback rating and a detailed post, you should be fine 90% of the time. Just don’t do what I did when I started and buy based on price, you’ll end up with a lot of junk that is hard to resell and collects dust. So know what you’re looking for in focal length and lens speed... I shoot run and gun, horror and thriller short films. So I need fast lenses for lowlight. I try not to get any prime lens slower than an f/2. But I also rarely change lenses, so a fast 50mm lens (which are common) is often all I’ll use on a day’s shoot. Your mileage may vary.

Sorry, I swore I replied to this. No, I wasn’t referring to you, specifically, or even generally. And I agree, ML Raw is not for the timid. I have a friend who is a filmmaker, and he has loved what I’ve been doing since I started shooting with my 5D3. But as much as he loves the look, he’d rather shoot with IBIS and get “close.” So you’re right to state the issues with ML Raw, even if we don’t necessarily see them as such.

Hmm, I think the image of the Lumix may be misleading... http://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3478912/william-friedkins-exorcism-doc-devil-father-amorth-gets-release-date/ In this article, the writer references a Variety article where Friedkin states, “I had to shoot it alone, obviously. The conditions were that I come along with no crew and no lights. So I used a Sony still camera that shot high-definition video. I had only that camera running and I was about two feet away from them, probably even closer.” So either Friedkin forgot which camera they used, or for that shot, he just held a different camera, while someone else shot him with the production camera, for effect? This grab from the trailer shows the camera in use... It’s still hard to tell, so I cropped in... It certainly kinda looks like a Panasonic, but I suppose it could also be a Sony RX10. Either way, he seems comfortable recording audio, in camera, with that little Sennheiser microphone... without even monitoring it. I suppose they may have used multiple cameras on the film but what I find most telling about the whole idea... Last May, while we were arguing which 4K camera is the best and most suitable for creating a cinematic image, William Friedkin grabbed a camera, plugged in a mic and shot a film. Pretty damn cool!!!

Which Lumix camera was used? And I want to save my judgement until I see the Devil’s skin tone.

I actually like the look of the RawLite footage very much, although it is a little too saturated for my tastes. I think the biggest “issue” with this test is the randomness of it. It seems you are really trying to work out the kinks of using a new cinema camera. So, I’m unsure if using an event like this is the best time and place to sort it out? If I were you, I’d find the most peaceful, beautiful place in your town. When the light is perfect, go there, with your tripod and shoot no more than 3-5 minutes of footage... edit that down to a 1-2 minute video and correct and grade the footage. I also think that just using Lumetri for your tests may yield better results. Keep the correction/grade as simple as possible. Also, are you shooting cLog? Because a simple cLog to Rec709 LUT should give you a great starting point and then just a light contrast and saturation adjustment will get you the rest of the way there. And... doesn’t the C200 have built in ND filters?

I’m unsure why people are so adamantly opposed to ML Raw around here? The process is rather painless now and the hacked firmware is as stable as Canon’s original firmware... in the year I have been shooting ML Raw, I have had zero issues with reliability. The post processing time is a hair more time consuming but with MLVFS, it is pretty quick... once you copy the MLV files to a hard drive, the footage runs in Resolve as if it were any other footage. Sure if you’re an event videographer and need to collect a lot of footage, then it may not be the right choice... even though there are wedding videographers that use the 5D3 and ML Raw to much success. So the only issue is storage. For the most part, storage isn’t that expensive. Personally, the “storage restraints” have forced me to become more thoughtful about what I shoot. I am working only on narratives, so in a lot of ways, ML Raw has been a godsend. I no longer have hours upon hours worth of footage to comb through. I pre-visualize my scenes, make a shot list and get the shots. I don’t do a bunch of takes for the sake of it.

I read an article about a month or so ago that stated Canon was looking to be creative with lens options in upcoming mirrorless cameras. So I think this is probably one of their “creative” options. I believe Canon files dozens to hundreds of patents a year, so who knows if this is for future tech or for a specific product in production. I think we may be seeing a culmination of various possibilities for a couple different mirrorless camera models within this one patent.

On another note, probably irrelevant to this patent... I read a few months ago that Canon has some patents for M4/3 lenses.