kye

Here's a few images from the GF3, not exactly the best video camera in the world, but even it has some nice colour. These are all shot with the Mir 37mm f2.8 with speed booster and wide open, and all shots are SOOC: Obviously these are very challenging conditions with mixed colour temps and low light so the ISO probably wasn't at its native setting either, but not bad. These all look a bit flat to me, even from such an old camera with a low DR compared to now, but my literally my first thought is to increase contrast and then evaluate the saturation. I've analysed GX85 colour before in this thread: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/59121-gx85-alexa-conversion-and-colour-profile-investigations/ The default profiles are like most modern profiles, and bear a resemblance to some of the best colour in the business... GX85 Natural Profile: Alexa: To get a sense of how similar these are, if they were technically correct those lines would go straight to the middle of the reference boxes on the overlay. Obviously they're way off, but in a relatively similar way. Obviously this is a dramatic simplification of the whole colour science, but it gives a sense of it. My experience of the GH5 is that it it a real work-horse and that everything has been thought-through so that it quietly does the job and stays out of your way. The image was practically indestructible, even if you tried. I've posted these previously, but here's what happens if you try to break the image.. Here's the flattest image I could find - SOOC HLG: With the most extreme amount of contrast you can make with the curves tool (literally a vertical line): I think that was the 150Mbps IPB codec too - the 400Mbps ALL-I might be better again. When I had the XC10 and was shooting 8-bit C-Log I was trying and failing to get good colour from it and trying to learn colour grading and colour management etc, and I was watching all these colour grading tutorials of people grading RAW Alexa and RED and BM footage and there was this smoothness and elegance in how it all worked - they adjusted this control and that control and the footage just glided around like it had infinite subtlety and richness in the files, but the XC10 footage was just the opposite. Then I bought the GH5 and the files felt exactly how all those colour grading tutorials looked - the files were just like velvet. Of course, it's not quite as good as the high-end cine cameras, but the footage is seriously malleable and if you know what you're doing then you can really extract great images from it. All modern cameras are like hypercars and most film-making uses only a tiny fraction of their potential.

My expertise is very far from masterclass.. if you think it is that level then it just shows how little you understand about the subject. If you were being sarcastic then that's just not very nice, and really just makes a comment about how badly you handle criticism. If you weren't being sarcastic, then you obviously have some sort of belief about cameras and colour science that is holding you back from hearing what everyone seems to be telling you. You obviously took my comments personally, which of course you're free to do, but this isn't a discussion about how we can all make each other feel loved and supported - this is a discussion about something tangible and there are concepts to understand, so if you aren't understanding them then pointing that out is a kindness, because it provides you the opportunity to re-evaluate and try and listen to peoples comments in a new way. The concept you're not understanding is that no-one who cares about colour grading enough to talk about it online but wouldn't be willing to change camera settings, upload LUTs, or do basic adjustments in post. Even the "Buy my LUT" YT camera bros will tell you that you need to grade underneath it, at least making minor changes to the contrast, WB, exposure, saturation, and the like. The people that are willing to talk about colour grading online but aren't willing to actually do anything about it aren't interested in colour science, they're interested in trolling or are lonely or are attached to a fantasy they can buy great results or some other motivation. The people who want good colour are willing to at least lift a finger - in post to change a setting here or there - to get better results. The differences in these side-by-side comparisons you're making is, in many instances, a single adjustment in camera or in post, taking literally a few seconds... far less time than you've invested in arguing against practically any sensible advice given in this or the many other threads you've started.

You're still not getting it. If you were going to shoot SOOC, you would adjust the camera settings to dial in the look you like. You'd be colour grading in-camera rather than in post. It's well known that Panasonic users will adjust the Hue in the camera in order to shift the skin tones to where they want so SOOC looks to their tastes. The GH5 (and many other cameras I'd imagine) have manual temp and tint controls so you can dial in whatever WB you want manually. Also, if you were going to put a LUT into the camera, you'd dial it in first, making it how you wanted. I seriously don't think that there is anyone that is interested in good colour that isn't willing to do at least something to get it - not willing to audition and customise the profile in-camera AND not willing to even do light edits in post but yet still wanting good colour enough to change camera systems entirely is just silly. It's like saying you want to make the best adventure films possible but you're not willing to leave your house. Most cameras have too much DR to look good SOOC because the profiles won't look contrasty enough, so a lower DR camera is your best bet. The GX85 is pretty good in this regard. As well as for other aspects of the film-making process that shall remain nameless and unacknowledged. Panasonic actually has really nice colour - it's just not cool to say it out loud on the forums but I hear it from people in private quite often. Here's a post with a bunch of GX85 images that are all SOOC: https://www.eoshd.com/comments/topic/74148-making-the-most-of-the-iphone-gx85-and-gh5-and-shooting-in-the-real-world/?do=findComment&comment=569842 No. No-one "keeps" the green in the Alexa image. Anyone shooting with an Alexa will be colour grading it. Anyone who shoots on Alexa and ends up with a green tinted image WANTED that look, and CREATED that look specifically. It didn't stay there by default due to the lack of anyone doing any colour grading. That green look that I showed in feature films is actually not very easy to get - just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not desirable and nuanced. Think about this some more... You saw that side-by-side with the Alexa and P4K. What did that show you? Even in very high DR situations, the P4K is a simple matrix transformation away from looking like an Alexa. But, P4K footage from all these influencers and low-budget film-makers doesn't look like Alexa footage - not even slightly! Why? Because the look of TV and movies isn't created by the camera - it's created by the lighting, production design, and colour grading! Student films don't instantly look like movies when they buy an FX3. Some years ago a YouTuber I follow hosted a TV show and vlogged the BTS and got a few production images to share. There was one that was side-by-side. This is the image from her A7S3 - a very capable camera - with a pretty standard colour grade: This is an unused production shot from the Sony cinema camera right next to her... Here's the thing... These cameras have almost everything in common and yet the image is so different. Hannah isn't a colourist but isn't a noob either - her videos will be colour graded to a reasonable extent and she regularly makes beautifully looking images and sequences in her travels around Japan. So what's left? Everything except the camera.... So no, if even a tourism travel TV show can colour grade their images so far from where they started, then no Alexa footage ends up green by "keeping" the green in.

I wonder who these mics are actually for? I mean, influencers have gone away from hidden microphones in order to look authentic: and even people taking the piss out of them... The pros are going to actually mic people up properly. So, who is left? Is there some hidden niche of people who care about speed and also hiding the mic? My experience of the people that are just using the little matchbox sized mics is that they aren't trying to hide them either: Even the street-interview people aren't hiding them:

HA! I guess that goes to show that their target customers aren't the colourists then!!

I also have that. It was great and really well designed in terms of how the controller mapped to the functions and the workflow etc. It was fiddly though, that's for sure. The only limitation I found with it was that it couldn't do what I described above with pushing two adjustments against each other. Of course if you don't work that way, then it wouldn't matter. Comparing the number of controls it offered vs the dedicated BM panels was just insane - I really think that BM could make a killing changing their whole approach to the panels. Imagine if they made a more generic panel that had "pages" and could be switched between them. Let's imagine the entry-level one costs $1000 and can get to half-a-dozen pages. The amateur buys one panel, and switches between the pages, and life is good. The pro wants dedicated controls for everything without switching, so buys multiple panels and sets each one to a different page. The pro also buys the "pro" panel that costs $2000 and can access the other restricted panels. Later on the pro buys more pro panels. In the end the pro has spent as much as they would have buying the Advanced panel, so there's no loss of income for BM, and the pro gets a customisable surface where the controls go where they want. This can be configured in 2 minutes in shared spaces like colouring rooms. Of course. Interesting to learn you figured it out though. The only place online I could find anything on it their attempt failed. Maybe it failed due to fear of legal action rather than technical impenetrability, but interesting nonetheless.

Great camera. It's cinema in a box the size of a pack of cigarettes. There's nothing wrong with video - technically it's what I do. One thing that is starting to be understood is the look of the footage, which with video often looks quite artificial, which is in contrast to film which looks quite organic. Artificial isn't a bad thing either - all styles are valid. My own preferences are for something that is aesthetically pleasing, mildly flattering, and doesn't call attention to itself. This has pushed me into investigating the whole subject and what "cinematic" actually means, which leads into the territory of YouTubers making cinematic videos that despite having huge amounts of effort and thousands of dollars of equipment are some of the least cinematic videos ever made, even when compared to something like a T2i. ...and you can install your own. Bingo! Instantly, you can have whatever look you want, SOOC. This is what I do. My current best answer is GX85, 14-140mm zoom, 12-35mm zoom, and 12-32mm zoom. If I'm not allowed to colour grade it, I'll edit it on a 720p timeline and export upscaling that timeline to 4K. That will knock the digital edge off it. Why? Because if your camera is large then you'll get beautiful images with lovely colour science and everyone in the background of those images will be staring at the camera. Oh darn it! There I go again, talking about something other than colour. It's like I'll never learn that there's no more to film-making than camera tests. C300mk2. Why? Go watch any video on why this is the most popular documentary camera. Rent an Alexa. If you want to understand why, go watch any video from a professional cinematographer or colourist talking about why Alexa is the best choice. Neither do I. Which is sort of the point I've been making all along. Alexas are known to be green, sometimes even problematically so. Canons are magenta. etc etc. If we're talking about choosing cameras for the best SOOC colour, and yet bizarrely there isn't any limitation on the fact that some cameras require 3 people to operate them, then I'm thinking that if you can put a LUT in the camera then it counts as being SOOC colour. Ironically, because it comes SOOC lol. In which case, you can choose Alexa 65 and just put a modified 250D / 2383 LUT in there and you're done! Alexas also tend to go green. There's a knob in any NLE that corrects this, but don't let 3s of work in post stop you from changing your entire set design around that one tiny little thing!

You'd have to try it, as there are a number of factors that impact the drive speed required for editing, the distance between key-frames being a pretty critical one. If they've done a good job then it could work off a cheaper drive. Of course, if you're anything like me then you've got an older SSD that's too small spare, so with the reduced file sizes then you could put them on an older drive and work from there.

You can agree or disagree or bump whatever threads you want - I showed you examples from the real world. If bumping threads somehow changed reality, I'd bump as many threads as was necessary to make it so that I could get Hollywood level colour from my phone without any work in post. Hell, I'd create all the accounts and make all the posts myself if it would actually make it so. I am so vocal about this because what you are asking about is what I desperately want, but that just isn't how it works. To answer your question directly, no I don't say that the camera doesn't matter at all, but the camera doesn't matter in terms of getting great shots straight-out-of-camera without any work in post, because none of them can do it. Have you ever seen ungraded Alexa footage? It looks just like ungraded footage from any other capable camera (S1H, BMPCC, etc). In fact, you know what... here's your answer. The BMPCC 4K. Here is a comparison between an Alexa and a BMPCC 4K without any grading done in post except the ARRI LUT (and of course the BMPCC4K has had a conversion put onto it to make it match the Alexa). Juan is a professional film-maker / colourist and this is the real-deal, not a YT LUT bro product. If you think that any camera is capable of what you want then the Alexa must be, and as you can see, with that conversion the BMPCC4K can do it too. This is the product page. https://juanmelara.com.au/products/bmpcc-4k-to-alexa-powergrade-and-luts Knock yourself out!

More examples of bad lighting. This was a 709 shot from my GF3, which obviously couldn't auto-WB far enough to compensate (yes, this looked white in person): My best attempt at grading in post also couldn't compensate well enough: But the real demonstration is on a project. Here's a camera test I shot. These are the images after grading: They all look pretty straight-forward, but it took a lot of work to get to that. Here are the shots SOOC: Note that adjacent shots have considerably different looks - SOOC: After: Obviously I've let the flaring lower the contrast on the middle images to a certain extent because otherwise it would look too forced, but the tint of the first image and second ones needed to be evened out as one had the sun in it and the other didn't. I've shot these tests by the beach many times, using many different cameras (OG BMPCC, BMMCC, GH5, GX85, XC10, GF3, iPhone, GoPro, etc), shooting manually and in auto, in RAW / LOG / 709, etc etc. All required decent amounts of work in post to even them out and look normal. It's like anything - the natural look takes the most amount of work and is, in reality, the least natural. You keep saying you want nice looking images without doing any/much work, but I've been working super hard at this for quite some years now and it's just not possible. You either get nice looking images with work, or you wave the camera around and you get out what you put in - a film that looks like a dad with a handycam. The myth that you can buy it was created by equipment manufacturers trying to sell you cameras and LUT bros on YT trying to sell their LUT packs.

....and if that image doesn't illustrate the problem with lighting, how about this one. SOOC HLG: With a basic grade: These lights all looked white in person! I sat down, pulled out my camera (GH5 again), looked through the viewfinder and was stunned at the green/magenta mess the camera saw.

Sure. You just have to hope that the world is perfect and doesn't give you mixed lighting. That every shot you take has the same lighting ratio. That your camera doesn't have metameric failure as the WB changes to match the lighting changes. Etc Etc. Even on completely controlled film sets, colourists still tweak each shot to even them up between angles etc, so even if the world was perfect your results still wouldn't be.

The image I posted with the bad lighting was GH5, shooting LOG, with a standard conversion to 709. The GH5 is a huge capable camera, the issue was the lighting not the camera.

I watched it at 144p and it looked almost like a normal (shitty) romcom. I know it will get better, but at the moment it's really only putting emotional drivel straight-out-of-film-school first-time-directors out of business, and they weren't making money before either. It's when they start making awful action movies that it will shake things up. Emotional drivel doesn't make money, but the action equivalent makes billions....

True. Especially if you wanted to have good control over it independently across the 6 main colours. There's a lot of talk about how these two plugins are going to put DCTL writers (plugin scripts essentially) out of business. I don't think it will, because DCTLs can be made to do a lot more things than they are currently used for, but it's an interesting observation that the DCTL writers were using them to do things like this because they weren't so easy from the UI. In the same way that a new camera gets everyone on here excited and then start to argue with each other, discussing film emulation has the same effect on the colourist groups. I've found two things: 1) The more I read these discussions the more I realise I don't know. 2) The more I read these discussions the more I realise I don't care! Seriously, the focus for the colourists who are arguing seems to be how accurate they are. What is interesting though, is like here with cameras, the people arguing seem to care a lot about tiny little things, and yet the people out in the world doing the things also don't care about the accuracy of the tiny little things, but just see the emulations as useful for actually doing real work. I suspect that the niche for Dehancer is likely to either be that it's more accurate, at least for certain film-stocks, or that it is more useful in some feature or other. These are the kinds of things that colourists seem to care about. The fact you tested it with a stills film rather than a motion picture stock might also be significant as the colourists likely don't care too much about those.

This is a fundamental split in the camera communities - those who like the look of cinema and those that like the look of video. Yes, the video that @mercer posted was low-contrast / desaturated / greenish. That's the look. It's also the look of a great many feature films and high budget TV shows. Notice the similar colour palette? This one even includes it 🙂 Some consider it THE look of cinema. You might be thinking that you're interested in a neutral look because you aren't making action / thriller / horror movies, and that's fair, so where is the look with the natural skin tones? To that, I ask, which look with natural skin tones are you talking about? But, you meant a neutral look! Sorry. You must mean an image that has only been technically converted to a correct image... like these. But these don't look the same either ...and yet they are shot with neutral lighting by professionals and even have test charts in them to ensure that the image is correctly exposed and balanced etc - these are literally test images! If these images don't look the same then how the hell can any image be correct? This is what I'm saying. There is no neutral image. The lighting angle changes the look. The lighting ratio impacts the look. Time of day impacts the look. High key vs low key. Just kidding! Lenses impact the look. Filters etc etc. This is why I emphasise working in post. Take the above image for example. A little work in post, and voila - now you have a "more accurate" match! Or what if you over exposed your camera drastically? No problem if you know what to do in post.. (Source: https://cinematography.net/alexa-over/alexa-skin-over.html) This is why trying to get the look you want by only looking at the camera and ignoring the other aspects, when they can completely override the differences between cameras is misguided. Hell, with a simple transform you can turn one capable camera into another anyway: (credit: Miguel Santana ILM) I truly do understand the temptation of the camera body. It has the most buttons, it's the thing that everything connects to, it's the complicated thing that everyone talks about, it costs lots of money etc. They're also super cool, absolutely. But they're not the defining object when creating the look, even if you literally buy one with a lens attached and only shoot in a 709 profile, then you're still shooting things that look different based on the lighting and composition and how you expose etc etc. But what if you just want to shoot what is there and have it look nice. Absolutely. This is literally what I do. I shoot travel with my GX85 and mostly a single lens, and it only shoots in rec709 profiles. However, because of all the above factors, the footage will vary from shot to shot. So in order to make it more uniform in the edit I learned to colour grade. Let alone the absolutely horrific lighting that is around... Take this image I've shared previously: Look at the sleeve of the jumper - it is a single colour - the lights are just very low-cost LEDs and although they looked white in person they are very different hues to the cameras eye. Notice how that yellow is bleeding into his hand near his wrist and also into the lower part of the ladies face? If you want good skin-tones - oh boy you better hope that you get good lighting! Otherwise, colour grading is there to fix what your camera did, rather than ruin it. Getting a neutral 709 video-style look with lighting like this would require a huge amount of work in post. That's why these "which camera to buy to get good skin tones" always have a silent assumption before the question that say "assuming the world doesn't exist or if it did exist then assume it's perfect", which obviously isn't a very useful assumption.

No-one is going to hack the BM hardware, they will have put a huge amount of effort into the security because they essentially use Resolve to drive hardware sales, so it's critical to their business model. In terms of buying a panel, here's my advice. There are two benefits you would get from buying a panel.. The first is speed. If you have to grade a 90 minute feature film in 5 days, you will have over 2000 shots to grade and be approaching needing to grade 1 shot or more per minute. If grading a shot involves doing 6 things, then that's 12000+ actions - PER WEEK! With these kinds of numbers, if you can save 1s per action, that's 3.3 hours per week saved. A panel pays for itself in this type of scenario. The second reason is pushing things against each other. For example, if you want a bit of teal/orange with the LGG wheels, you will push the Lift wheel towards blue and at the same time you push the Gamma wheel towards orange. You will be balancing one against the other, and you are adjusting how much of each you push. This is almost impossible to do if you can't adjust both wheels at the same time, so it's extremely tedious with a mouse for example. You might also push Gamma against Gain for a highlight rolloff. Saturation against Colour Boost for saturation compression, or skintones, etc. Lots of things where you push one thing against another. Only controllers that are official to BM can do this type of simultaneous actions. I suggest you take a careful look at what you're doing when you grade a project and look to see if the panel will actually help you do it. I mean look in detail, confirming which controls in Resolve you use and confirming they're on the panel. Resolve has 1000 controls and only a very few are on the cheaper panels. It's also worth checking on things like the HDR Palette how the panel will work. The HDR Palette has a bunch of wheels but the controller does not. IIRC the controller moves the three wheels that are visible on the UI, but if you want to adjust three that aren't next to each other then I think you have to use the UI to navigate back and forth, which isn't that smooth a workflow, and you can't push two against each other unless you can control them at the same time, etc. For example, if you are going to use the Film Look plugin, which has exposure and WB etc, to grade each shot, then you will need a panel that allows control of OFX plugins, which I think is the Mini or Advanced panels, but they're NOT cheap! The other reason why you might want a panel is to teach yourself the old ways of grading, like LGG or Offset/Contrast/Pivot, and so in this sense the limitation makes sense. This is why I bought mine, but I now find those controls to be too limiting and to a certain extent, they're kind of a legacy now, although still popular because lots of colourists are old school and learned on those tools. Anyway, the panels are very good for what they do, but they don't do that much. In todays world where software is super flexible and UIs are great, when using a panel you will be quickly reminded that BM is a hardware company lol.

I've got mixed feeling for the new panel. On the plus side, it's got more controls and buttons than the previous one, and includes functions like adding new nodes etc, which you couldn't do with the previous one. On the negative side, it's still going to be a very limited product, the way that all BM hardware tools seem to be. If you look at the forums there are simple requests with hundreds of people showing support for them that BM has been ignoring for version-after-version of Resolve and based on their track record just won't ever implement. No one knows how they choose what to implement and what they don't, but it sure isn't from the forums. I bought a panel and taught myself to grade using it, and it is very intuitive, but it's very very limited in terms of what you can actually do with it - it's a tool really for people who have to do very basic grading on thousands of shots, week-after-week. If you want to do anything other than the controls on the panel then it's no good. Lots of colourists have a tablet or KB/mouse as the first things on the desk. The fact that the panel is small is a great feature, but in terms of it being a step towards what I'd want as a small control surface for mobile grading, it's a small step towards a far-off destination.

Doh! I guess it could be worse - you might have just bought FilmConvert or Dehancer or one of those things - they're MUCH more expensive than that! In terms of subtractive saturation, there are tonnes of ways to do it in Resolve without buying anything, but you have to do a bit of research and learn a little bit about colour grading. This is why I keep banging on to people about it.

Yeah, Film Look Creator and the ColorSlice looks pretty good, but a few that caught my eye were the AI based Dialogue Separator which give separate volume controls for the Voice, the Background, and the Ambience of the voice (ie reverb) so you can remove room-sound as well as the background, and the Music Remixer which gives separate volume controls for voice, drums, base, guitar, and "other". The music remixer will allow much easier and more powerful editing of music to fit your edit, rather than the other way around. I frequently chop up a song and cross-fade between clips to extend the same section or glue the ending onto the middle to end it sooner etc. TBH my main challenge is working with skin tones and Resolve doesn't have the most intuitive feature-set for what I want, so I'm in the awkward space of contemplating writing my own DCTL scripts or trying to massage it's existing features into use for what I want to do. The Film Look Creator and ColorSlice looks good but they seem to lack a couple of really basic (and quite obvious) features - neither has the ability to compress skintone hues, which is a major feature of film stocks, and the Fill Look Creator also doesn't have a slider directly for desaturating the highlights, which is another odd thing because that's a standard thing that film does too. Still, better than nothing for sure! Also, IIRC they tend to focus on new features in the early betas, and then switch gears to optimising performance as they move to a stable release, so the fact it's a bit slow now is to be expected.

That sounds great! Having two people instead of one would be an incredible advantage and time saver. I've tried to film myself for camera tests enough to know that it's almost impossible to frame and focus and expose correctly when you're the one in the frame!! Also, what about Resolve 19 are you excited about?

Yeah, if you have to walk backwards and it has to be professional-level results then that's absolutely a time when you need to pull out all the stops. I haven't really seriously tested the EIS on the GH5, but I do remember playing with it and it was more stable than the IBIS alone, which makes sense. If you can get gimbal-like or gimbal-near performance then it sounds like that will be a real advantage for those key moments. I bought one of those phone gimbals and I think I used it about 3 times ever. It was such a PITA to have to run the app to connect to the gimbal, and the stupid thing lost the horizon gradually as you were panning. When you need to shoot fast to capture things happening in real-time that faffing is the last thing you want!

What situations do you need that level of stabilisation for? In terms of stabilisation, MILCs really have a long way to go (but a lot of potential!) compared to the crazy level of stabilisation that GoPro etc showed was possible. Obviously there are many factors involved, but there's no reason we couldn't get very good stabilisation from MILCs. One thing I do see, however, is that it's possible to have too much stabilisation if the camera is moving in 3D space, because if you stabilise too hard then you get that gimbal effect where the camera is locked onto a direction but is floating around in space like a drone trying to hover. If the stabilisation isn't quite as good and leaves a little shake in the frame then the floating blends in with the shaking and it just looks like hand-holding and doesn't look so odd.

What software are you grading in? and what's your pipeline? I'm in Resolve, so tend to use Colour Space Transforms, which gives a whole other way to look at things because everything is on the table... the ARRI LUTs, Print Film Emulations, etc etc. Lots of discussions about equipment occur here, but it's basically impossible to discuss cameras without doing it in the context that they're for a particular thing. Otherwise you could be talking about how the GH1 is better than the Z8 because it makes a better paperweight, or how an AE-1 is the best camera ever because when you mount it on a pole in your cornfield the sun glints off the mirror and keeps the crows away. Without context there is no basis to discuss anything.

I'm not familiar with the GH5v2 but Panasonic was (at that time) updating cameras with all the user-feedback, and your description was certainly things that the community was wanting. I definitely agree that one of the main challenges is taking a clip that was shot in LOG and has 10-14 stops of DR in it, and somehow stuffing that into Rec709 which has just over 5 stops of DR. This obviously manifests in having to crush or severely compress various areas of the luminance range, but it also means that the source material can have colours that are dramatically more saturated than Rec709 can contain and you'll need to work out how to contain those too. Once you have enough DR to shoot the scenes you need to shoot, having more is actually a liability rather than a feature. I co-produced a 5-min short with my sister a long time ago, and we estimated that all up it had 10,000 person-hours in it. But enough of this blasphemous film-making talk - we should go back to talking about camera colour profiles like film-making doesn't exist!