Alt Shoo

It’s definitely been a tough stretch. Budgets are tighter and clients seem slower to move, even on things that would’ve been quick approvals not long ago. I’m seeing the same pattern where more content is being made but with less real investment behind it.
The best move might be putting more time into personal projects that could eventually be licensed or streamed. Even if it only brings in small checks at first, it adds up over time and keeps your creativity active.
I still think there’s room for people who know how to make something feel real. The tools are everywhere now, but the connection and emotion still come from experience.

@Snowfun
This really hits home. Especially the part about sitting in front of Resolve for hours trying to fix something that might have lost its purpose before the grade even started. The gear cycle has become its own kind of trap. We keep upgrading tools that already do more than we need while forgetting what we were trying to say in the first place.
What you’re describing feels less like disillusionment and more like realignment. It’s that moment when you start asking what actually matters and realize the art is in the process, not the specs. Whether it’s a Leica M11M or a P6K, the camera only matters if it helps you express what you feel.
I’ve gone through something similar. I’ve realized that storytelling and emotion always outlast sharpness or dynamic range. A phone clip that feels alive will connect more than a perfect cinematic shot that says nothing.
You summed it up best at the end. Art in both process and product. That’s the part that stays with me.
 

Art…
Over the last couple of years I have become increasingly disillusioned by “video”. Far too much emphasis on gear. Buying the latest drone or gimbal or battery solution and upgrading this or that or, preferably, both. And to what end? To produce something that a handful of people will watch once on a phone screen? Last year I had the opportunity to produce a couple of short promotional films for a heritage steam railway. They got in the order of 10k views. Were they “art”? No, they were artistically dreadful. Was there any joy in making them? Not really - far too many hours sitting staring at a screen trying to remember how to use Resolve. (And, to be honest, the parts people liked most were the iPhone bits - the “artistic” sweeping views and thoughtful sequences were redundant…)
All the time wondering whether a Canon might be better (whatever that means) than my Sony? A LUMIX better than my P6k? Or should I look good and get a RED badge? Or a Nikon? All, of course, irrelevant… the quality of today’s stuff is way more than what I’m capable of.
So a change of scene. I’ve bought a M11M to produce art for the wall. Something which will last beyond a quick Vimeo view. It’s gorgeous to use. I got a mix of Leica and Voigtlander lenses (the latter’s 28/35/50 Apo are fabulous). The results are incredible. Ok, so I still need to sit at the computer with Capture One but protecting the highlights and pulling up the shadows reveals staggering levels of detail. And standing by the side of a Scottish loch debating whether to use a green, yellow, orange or red filter? Well, it ticks the pseudo-intellectual hipster box. 
Of course, the P6k will come out of the cupboard every-so-often but the focus - the passion - is now on monochrome art. 
Art. In both process and product.

Tianluokeng Tulou clusters, Fujian Province, China.
These buildings have a very thick outer wall of earth and a 3-5 storey inner wooden structure that houses dozens of families.  The structure is designed to be stable during earthquakes and secure against bandits.  The oldest if the ones we visited was built in 1796.
These are just with a quick grade, mostly Resolve Film Look Creator. The DR in the scene is extreme, and while all the required info is in the files, I'm going to have to go heavy on the power-windows when I grade these properly.
Grabs from GH7 + 14-140mm zoom.








Grabs from iPhone 17 Pro shooting Prores Log with default app.
The Prores HQ Apple Log files grade really nicely, have heaps of DR, and are great to work with. The DR isn't quite as much as the GH7, but it's more than enough for these scenes.  These were graded at a different time to the above GH7 shots so probably don't match.





All-in-all, the iPhone well and truly punches above its weight when you take into account it's pocketability, the size of the sensor, and the incredible range in focal lengths.  Imagine how much you'd have to pay to get a lens that can do 13-200mm FF equivalent FOV and has exposure levels between F1.78 and F2.8 across the whole range.

Absolutely.  Use a tripod or stabiliser when required and use an ND to shoot manually with the iPhone and you'll get top notch results with a very light setup.
Great to hear people using modest tools and putting out work.

For me, the iPhone has been competent for filming since the 13 pro max. I’ve produced whole documentaries with it. Now with the 17 pro max out, with an iPhone and maybe an action camera, I can document high quality content while being extra nimble and incognito. 

Enjoy.
Do you prefer cinema when it's busy or borderline empty? I think I prefer to go on quiet days.

This take is a bit much. Plenty of bad films were shot on film, and plenty of great ones were shot digitally. It’s not the format that makes a movie good or bad it’s how you use it. Preferring film is fine, but saying digital ruined cinema is extreme. 
That said, I’m interested in Fuji’s upcoming Eterna film camera. If it delivers high quality in camera color, it could push DPs to lock in the final look while shooting, which is an interesting approach.

Got it, I see what you’re saying about the DP shooting for the edit rather than fixing things in post. That’s a solid approach when you know exactly what you need, and I respect that.
As for pros not talking about gear, I’m not saying they never do. Of course, people in the industry test and discuss new tech, but the difference is that those conversations usually focus on how the gear serves the work, not endless debates over minor details that don’t make or break a project.
I don’t have an issue with people being passionate about cameras, I just think the discussion gets lost when it’s more about obsessing over specs than actually applying them to real world filmmaking.

Got it, I see what you’re saying about the DP shooting for the edit rather than fixing things in post. That’s a solid approach when you know exactly what you need, and I respect that.
As for pros not talking about gear, I’m not saying they never do. Of course, people in the industry test and discuss new tech, but the difference is that those conversations usually focus on how the gear serves the work, not endless debates over minor details that don’t make or break a project.
I don’t have an issue with people being passionate about cameras, I just think the discussion gets lost when it’s more about obsessing over specs than actually applying them to real world filmmaking.

I get that people love to dissect every little thing, but as someone working with some of the biggest media companies, I can tell you that a lot of these so called issues don’t even come up in real world professional work. The S1R II delivers solid image quality, stabilization, and dynamic range. More than enough to create high level content. I’m not saying don’t analyze your tools, but at some point, you have to ask, is this actually making you a better filmmaker, or just keeping you stuck in analysis paralysis? If your priority is making great content, you’ll be just fine.

I’m going to check this out. Thanks for sharing this. 

Regarding technique and creativity, has anyone seen Adolescence on Netflix?
Among the most viewed TV series on Netflix is Adolescence, a four-episode British miniseries that is receiving rave reviews from audiences and critics just about everywhere. The praise is partly about the story it tells, and partly about the way the series was written, performed, and, above all, directed: each episode is in fact shot in a single, very long take, that is, all at once, with no cuts between shots and therefore no breaks for the actors and crew, and no editing required.
Adolescence was written by Englishmen Jack Thorne and Stephen Graham. In addition to contributing to the screenplay, the latter also plays Eddie Miller, the protagonist's father and one of the main characters. The director, on the other hand, is compatriot Philip Barantini, who four years ago had directed Graham himself in the film Boiling Point - Disaster is Served, a thriller that was a good success in the United Kingdom and which, just like Adolescence, was shot with a single long take.
Adolescence centers on the story of Jamie Miller, a 13-year-old student who is arrested on charges of committing murder. However, the detective plot is set aside fairly early on because the point of the series is not so much to get to the resolution of a case, but to analyze the motives behind the actions of a teenager in our times, and to place them in the social and cultural context in which he lives.
For me, who has a 13-year-old son, the first two episodes were a punch in the gut. Perhaps the absence of editing also helps to give you no respite and lower you even more into the story. Truly a peculiar product.
Two scenes in particular struck me. For the first, at the beginning of the first episode, I had thought of a crane being moved on a trolley or truck. The second one is even more peculiar because the camera goes through the window and flies high above the houses. Netflix has released a BTS showing both scenes. (Spoiler: they used a drone)
Sorry, I couldn't find a YT link:
https://x.com/NetflixUK/status/1901617851192033326
It was entirely shot on the Ronin 4D:
Spoiler alert:
https://variety.com/2025/artisans/news/adolescence-one-take-episodes-netflix-1236339292/
 

There are moments here I enjoy but this forum feels more like a place to vent about gear than to actually discuss the craft of filmmaking. Where are the conversations on creative problem solving? How are people pulling off run and gun shooting in restricted areas without permits? What are some cost-effective practical effects techniques for horror films? Are certain shot compositions or camera movements more effective at evoking specific emotions in an audience?
I know I can find some of this on YouTube, but part of the appeal of a forum like this is the ability to connect directly with professionals, exchange real world experiences, and even spark collaborations. Is anyone still having these kinds of discussions here?

I get that people love to dissect every little thing, but as someone working with some of the biggest media companies, I can tell you that a lot of these so called issues don’t even come up in real world professional work. The S1R II delivers solid image quality, stabilization, and dynamic range. More than enough to create high level content. I’m not saying don’t analyze your tools, but at some point, you have to ask, is this actually making you a better filmmaker, or just keeping you stuck in analysis paralysis? If your priority is making great content, you’ll be just fine.

FWIW, I recently did a post about the doc the wife and I are working on.  Some of our production insights there.  Examples are posted too, so you can judge if what we're talking about measures up to your standards.  Not the first time we've done that either.  Yeah, it's a gear site first and foremost, but other info floats around too.

I get where you’re coming from, and I understand that different workflows exist for different reasons. But at some point, you have to ask, are we pushing our tools to be better storytellers, or just finding ways to avoid tightening up our craft? There’s a difference between efficiency and just being lazy. If someone is taking multiple takes to get it right, that’s not always inexperience. It’s making sure the shot actually works without needing to “fix it in post.” On the other hand, the mindset of shooting carelessly and relying on post production isn’t efficiency, it’s a crutch.
Regarding not using older gear, some people don’t use those older cameras simply because they want to make their job easier. Newer cameras offer better usability, faster workflows, etc. but still, as everyone allegedly already knows, you can still achieve a high quality look with older gear. It just comes down to experience and knowing how to work with what you have.
At the end of the day, I don’t see top level professionals getting caught up in these debates. They pick their tools, use the features that matter, and get the job done. Ninpo33 mentioned a DP who didn’t realize a camera had a particular function…because that DP focused on what helped him execute, not on obsessing over every technical option. That’s the difference between using your gear and getting lost in it.

This take is a bit much. Plenty of bad films were shot on film, and plenty of great ones were shot digitally. It’s not the format that makes a movie good or bad it’s how you use it. Preferring film is fine, but saying digital ruined cinema is extreme. 
That said, I’m interested in Fuji’s upcoming Eterna film camera. If it delivers high quality in camera color, it could push DPs to lock in the final look while shooting, which is an interesting approach.

I get that people love to dissect every little thing, but as someone working with some of the biggest media companies, I can tell you that a lot of these so called issues don’t even come up in real world professional work. The S1R II delivers solid image quality, stabilization, and dynamic range. More than enough to create high level content. I’m not saying don’t analyze your tools, but at some point, you have to ask, is this actually making you a better filmmaker, or just keeping you stuck in analysis paralysis? If your priority is making great content, you’ll be just fine.

I get that people love to dissect every little thing, but as someone working with some of the biggest media companies, I can tell you that a lot of these so called issues don’t even come up in real world professional work. The S1R II delivers solid image quality, stabilization, and dynamic range. More than enough to create high level content. I’m not saying don’t analyze your tools, but at some point, you have to ask, is this actually making you a better filmmaker, or just keeping you stuck in analysis paralysis? If your priority is making great content, you’ll be just fine.

I get that people love to dissect every little thing, but as someone working with some of the biggest media companies, I can tell you that a lot of these so called issues don’t even come up in real world professional work. The S1R II delivers solid image quality, stabilization, and dynamic range. More than enough to create high level content. I’m not saying don’t analyze your tools, but at some point, you have to ask, is this actually making you a better filmmaker, or just keeping you stuck in analysis paralysis? If your priority is making great content, you’ll be just fine.

I don't understand whether this is a provocative post or a serious one.
Now, I am also somewhat ignorant of the topic but some of the statements seem 'exaggerated' to me to be good.
In general, digital has greatly democratised cinema and its art. But every art has its era and its crafts and this constant 'it was better before' is largely pissing me off. It describes good old times that never existed. There were horse carriages and the farrier lobby, then came the railway and goodbye farriers. 
The truth is that today any artist can produce a film with cinematic quality at home and at a negligible cost. Unless you regret the old Super 8 home movies.
Anyway, back to the data. It's hard to talk about resolution as we understand it today in the digital world, but I have my doubts that a good film will not solve 8K, quite the contrary.
Here a document for nerds: http://www.tmax100.com/photo/pdf/film.pdf
But here there's a video that explains it more simply.
 
 
Regarding the immediacy of film.... are we talking cinema or home-made Super 8s? Because if you mention Clint Eastwood and Kodak Vision (Vision is cited also in the YT video above) then it's much more complex with intermediate and print stocks:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_stock
Ah and color grading existed on film stock too. It was called color timing:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_grading
Finally, am I saying that digital is better than film stock? NO, they are two different medium.

The notion of "color grading" is largely a commercial-construct designed to create the job of "colorist" and to sell computer hardware and software. Movies made after the 1980s look consistently worse and worse, because the popular concept of "fixing it in post" has led a generation of film-makers to disregard the importance of proper lighting, story, acting, and set design.
Something went very wrong in cinema after the mid-90s. Both socially and artistically. This degradation of quality in film-making coincided with three shifts in film-aesthetics:
1. The move from celluloid to digital.
2. The move from capturing a look based in 'reality', to color-graded footage.
3. An odd obsession with increased resolution.
With increased-resolutions, the decay of cinema became even more profound: When an actor's face is shot in close-up at 8k, we are seeing a level of surface-detail to the human-face that we would NEVER see in reality. So, what is the 8k+ film-maker actually capturing?
Cinema is predicated on our 'suspension of disbelief'. To intentionally shoot a film that cannot be believed, because it does not represent 'reality' in a way that we could possibly see, is anti-cinema.
The Rise of Anti Cinema
Through both malice, and incompetence, cinema has decayed. Before it can be saved, we must acknowledge the extent of this sickness, and then take steps to remedy it. We need to rely less on software, and more on our eyes, on set. We need to embrace imperfection, and return to capturing a plausible reality. We were better off when analog color-timing was the only post-production option for "grading" footage.
Cinema can be fantastical, magical, or extraordinary, but it should never be unbelievable. Let's return to honest, practical effects; proper lighting; and artistry in set-design. It's time to stop color-grading.
25 Years of Madness
Since the launch of the Sony F900, over 25 years ago, camera companies have been promising a digital replacement for analog 35mm film. For 25 years, they have been completely unable to deliver the 35mm analog look. Instead, film-makers have been expected to mess-around in computer software chasing an aesthetic that can rarely be achieved, and that the camera companies should have been providing as a default output.
Why (given the equivalent lighting, set and actors) can no commercially-available digital video camera shoot footage straight-out-of-camera that properly emulates the Kodak 5247 and Kodak 5254 color-negative stocks? These stocks practically defined cinema as we knew it, but they do not exist as digital equivalents.
We got scammed
Why must young film-makers wade about in a swamp of technical-nonsense, graphics cards, manuals, color-grading, and hardware chasing the look that an off-the-shelf roll of 35mm stills-camera film would have delivered instantly, for five-dollars, in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s? Why can't these stocks be delivered straight off-camera?
The camera industry has pushed responsibility for great video-capture onto the "colorist". The colorist is a symptom of decay in the camera and film industry; necessary only because of the technical failings of camera manufacturers, and their inability to simply deliver the replacement for Kodak stocks they promised over 25 years ago. The colorist is also a symptom of the decay in the excellence of artists on set.
The Broken Promise of the Camera Industry
We were promised film in a digital format. But, instead, the camera-industry redefined "film" as a sub-par version of itself. Then all the failings of this new medium were commercialized in a host of hardware and software to "repair" the damage done.
Why is it so difficult for the digital-camera industry to care about creating an accurate version of the very medium that it claimed to be replacing? The digital "Cinema" cameras of today have almost nothing to do with cinema as we knew it. This is nothing short of fraud.
 

None of the  ^above^ just no harm/enjoyment in considering alternative options.
Same as if I owned a Porsche, - wouldn't stop me looking at the latest Aston on-line, at a car show or simply parked up in the street and then wishing I had a bigger garage. And bank balance.
I sometimes look at multi-million currency yachts and houses I will never own, plus more affordable ones I could if I wished.
Call it an 'enthusiasm for the industry as a whole'.

I don't get "there aren't any lenses" talk. There are less lenses available than to a Sony shooter but there are plenty of lenses and more are appearing all the time. What lenses do most people really have? A 24-70 f2.8, maybe a wide or tele zoom depending on their work and 2 or 3 primes. You can easily have a decent L mount kit that covers most needs.